Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Hire Purchase

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade the date of the commencement of his discussions with the trade associations in so far as amendment of the Hire Purchase Act, 1954, is concerned; and if he is now in a position to make a statement as to his course of action or when he expects to be able to do so.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No discussions have taken place concerning the amendment of the Hire Purchase Act, 1954. If the hon. Lady is referring to consultations about the possibility of controlling hire-purchase advertisements, the Board of Trade first approached trade associations on this subject on 3rd August, 1955. I have still not had the considered views of all the bodies concerned, and I cannot yet say when I shall be able to make any statement.

Miss Burton: Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that on 25th October, 1955, his Parliamentary Secretary told me in the House that consultations with trade organisations were proceeding with a view to this amendment. Is he not further aware that the matter has gone on a very long time? Is it going to be an indefinite time before he is able to make an announcement on this subject?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is, as I see it, no possibility of any legislation on this subject this Session. Whether or not we should legislate will depend upon the state of the advertising and the effect of the various inquiries we have made during that period.

Miss Burton: Are we to assume from the President's replies that, however urgent the need, he rules out entirely any question of any amendment concerning advertisements in this Session?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think there is any possibility of legislation this Session.

Textiles (Standards)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement upon the result of the representations made by him to the cotton industry concerning the establishment of agreed standards for cotton cloths and household textiles in accordance with his statement in the House on 12th November, 1953.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: After my statement in the House on 12th November, 1953, I held further discussions with the cotton industry in which I made it clear that the progress made fell short of the undertakings which had been given. It is now clear that the difficulties, technical and otherwise, of securing agreement on standards for cotton textiles had not been fully appreciated by the industry at the time they gave those undertakings.

Miss Burton: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that whatever difficulties there may be the consumer always suffers, and that under this Government the Minister is not prepared to do anything more about it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no doubt that consumers in this country have a wide choice of admirably manufactured textiles over a very wide range.

Roumania (Talks)

Sir L. Plummer: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the trade talks with Roumania will be reopened.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We have invited the Roumanian Government to send a delegation to London for trade and financial talks, and we await their reply.

Sir L. Plummer: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to remember that since the trade talks with Roumania were broken off six months ago the Germans have made arrangements to increase their trade to something


like three times ours with Roumania, and the French have also increased their trade arrangements for 1956, and that these might have been a welcome addition to our trade?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I say, we have issued an invitation. I will not comment upon the possibilities in advance of our discussions.

Mr. Bottomley: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not trade alone that holds up these negotiations, and that so far as it is possible for him to carry on these negotiations he will see that the trade part develops as fast as possible?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. There are trade and payments questions involved.

Danish Bacon (Imports)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement upon the discussions held recently between representatives of his Department and the Danish delegation concerning the future of Danish bacon imports into this country.

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade when the negotiations with Denmark on the imports of Danish bacon into this country are to be resumed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the negotiations with Denmark about bacon imports.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: We are resuming talks with the Danish government today, and I am not at present in a position to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 30th January.

Miss Burton: Is the President aware of the concern felt among consumers at the proposed 10 per cent. tariff on the imports of Danish bacon and the consequent rise in the prices? Is he aware of the leakage which took place last week, which stated that compensation would also be offered to Denmark for the imposition of this tariff? Would he comment on it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I naturally bear everyone's interests in mind, and particularly those of the consumers. The hon.

Lady will not expect me to comment upon negotiations which are in progress at this moment.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the object of this exercise is not to arrive at a price which would enable the Government to charge more to the consumer and thus make a profit at the expense of the British consumer for the benefit of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Willey: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty during the continuance of negotiations, may I ask whether he appreciates the very strong feeling there is against a food tariff, and that this matter has caused general disturbance in many quarters?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There are many arguments affecting tariffs, State trading in bacon and many other matters, but I do not think that it would be useful for me to comment on them while negotiations are continuing.

Commander Agnew: Is it not the case that there is nothing new at all about tariffs on food, that we already have a wide range of tariffs on horticultural products, and that some of those concerned with the horticultural industry hope that in due time the President may see his way to increase some of those tariffs?

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the President explain to his hon. and gallant Friend that the Government's declared motive in increasing horticultural tariffs was that horticultural goods could not be dealt with under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and, therefore, needed tariff protection; but that it is possible to act under the 1947 Measure in the case of other commodities?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think this is getting a little wide of the negotiations.

Motor Industry

Mr. Moss: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the short-time working in motor vehicle factories in the Midlands; and what action he is taking in the interests of our export trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir, but I do not consider that the present situation in the motor industry calls for intervention by the Government. My Department is, of course, deeply interested in


the export performance of the industry and will continue to promote exports whenever possible.

Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that among the workers in these factories grave doubts exist owing to the failure of the home market on the one hand and increasing competition in foreign markets on the other?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of many of these problems, but I do not consider that a situation exists where Government intervention is called for. The motor industry has expanded largely and has considerable plans for further expansion in the future.

Captain Pilkington: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if costs continue to rise there will be considerably more short-time working?

Mr. Bowles: Has the attention of the President of the Board of Trade been drawn to the proposed 10 per cent. increase in the North Atlantic freight charges, starting on 1st April, and will not that increase make the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss) refers very much worse so far as the North American market is concerned?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My attention has been called to that, but it raises rather wider issues which go beyond motor cars.

Costs and Prices

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will confer with trade associations with a view to their members freezing prices for a definite period in the same way as the cement industry has done.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on 26th January.

Steel Shortage (Manufacturing Industries)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the frustrations in our export trade, particularly in the crane-making trade, caused by the shortage of steel; and if he will take steps with a view to resolving those difficulties to enable foreign orders for export to be completed in full.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the difficulties which manufacturing industries, including the crane-making trade, are experiencing in getting their full requirements of steel. The Board of Trade have invited the crane makers to discuss these difficulties with them.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, as is evidenced by the letter from Messrs. Henderson of Aberdeen which I sent to him, that his present disastrous policy is depriving the country of foreign currency and creating unemployment, and will he take urgent steps to rectify this situation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The crane makers, like other manufacturers, are experiencing certain shortages of steel associated with the very high levels of demand and investment at the present time.

Monopolies Commission

Mr. Beswick: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet made any decision with regard to the possible reference of the petroleum industry to the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on 26th January.

Mr. Beswick: It is easy to read that answer, but not to understand what it means. The President of the Board of Trade said his mind was made up, he has not made any reference, but he is considering the point. Does that mean that, after four years' consideration of the industry, he is not satisfied that there is a case for reference to the Commission, or that because of possible changes in the constitution of the Commission it is not expedient for the time being to refer this fresh industry to it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have made up my mind not to make a further statement on it at the moment.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in framing the Monopolies Bill, he will take into account the condemnation of individual resale price maintenance which is a feature of the last Report from the Monopolies Commission.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The views expressed in all the Reports of the Commission will be taken into account.

Mr. Jenkins: Surely the President cannot feel happy about producing a Bill which, as he indicated last July, will make the position in connection with the enforcement of individual resale price maintenance stronger than it is at present, in view of what he has said?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We can judge these matters only when we see the Bill.

Rabbits (Value)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the annual rabbit crop in 1953 in terms of meat value, hatting and clothing value, and rabbit skin exports, respectively.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The only official figures of the value of the British rabbit are those relating to the export of undressed skins which, for 1953, were valued at £716,271. At the end of 1953 the trades concerned estimated that the annual value of the rabbit in terms of meat was about £7 million, and that the annual turnover of the fur felt hat industry, together with the value of exports of hatters' fur, was about £7½million. The use of British wild rabbit skins in clothing was stated to be small, amounting to no more than £50,000 to £70,000 a year on average.

Mr. Henderson: In view of these serious figures, has the President of the Board of Trade had consultations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the overall effect of the extermination of wild rabbits? Is he proposing to take any action to deal with the problem, bearing in mind the very serious concern which is felt in the hatting and furrier industry in Lancashire, and the rabbit skin industry in other parts of the country such as Staffordshire?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think there would be very little doubt, looked at purely from the economic point of view, that the benefits to agriculture from not having rabbits outweigh any advantage to the fur industry in having rabbits.

Mr. Vane: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the enormous damage done by rabbits to agriculture, an even greater proportionate amount of damage is done to the nation's forestry, far outweighing the value of any of the loss—which we deplore—mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite?

Mr. Henderson: Without taking sides, would the President consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture because, while this may be important from one point of view if one is a farmer, it is equally important from another point of view if one is an employer of labour in the industries to which the Question refers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am always in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister tell the House whether he has had a discussion with the Minister of Agriculture and, if so, what the outcome of that discussion is?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The outcome is the Answer which I gave just now.

Anglo-Danish Trade (Tariff Policy)

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Danish Government regarding their proposal to impose a substantial import duty on Lancashire textiles.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on 26th January.

Mr. Holt: The right hon. Gentleman then said:
… there is no ground on which Her Majesty's Government could base representations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January. 1956; Vol. 548, c. 347.]
Surely there are always grounds if it is in the interests of one of our industries to continue to export to another country. Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in Lancashire he has not exactly built up a reputation for helping the textile industry, and is not this one single thing he could do—to make representations to Denmark not to increase the tariff against textiles?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I explained in a previous Answer, the Danes are only acting within a limit which they themselves negotiated.

Mr. Bottomley: Does not this indicate that if tariffs are put on Danish bacon there is retaliation and continuing rises in price?

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the present tariff policy in relation to the import of goods from Denmark.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Our tariff policy in relation to imports from Denmark, as from other foreign countries, is to provide where necessary, a fair and reasonable margin of protection for our own producers and to maintain preferences for trade with the Commonwealth.

Mr. Holt: Is it not an entirely new part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy to suggest that a 10 per cent. duty should now be put on bacon imports from Denmark? Is he not aware that if this results in an increase in the Danish tariff on textiles from Lancashire there will be very great indignation in Lancashire?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the hon. Member is trying to tempt me into making some comment on negotiations which are now proceeding.

Subsidised Imports (Australian Representations)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been made to him on behalf of the Government of Australia regarding the importation into the United Kingdom of subsidised foodstuffs and raw materials from other countries.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Australian Government have on several occasions expressed concern to us on these matters. We have always kept in close touch with all Commonwealth countries on these issues and consider fully any representations they make to us.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that at the moment there is great discontent in Australia at Her Majesty's Government's trade policy? Is he further aware that at about this time last year the Prime Minister of Australia made representations, saying that if we did not import goods from Australia that country would have to make import cuts—cuts which were made subsequently—and that now the Australian Minister of Commerce has made a similar declaration? Does the President not think that he should make a statement to allay the fears in Australia and promote trade between the two countries?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, very close consultations do take place now, as under the previous Government, before we make food arrangements under aid from the United States and other matters, and these consultations will continue.

Mr. Bottomley: Would the President consider issuing a public statement in answer to the Minister of Commerce in Australia?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Australian Minister of Commerce made a statement concerning the import of certain apples, and a statement was issued upon that. It was not a very major matter, but I certainly will consider making any further statement necessary—or perhaps, more conveniently, communicate with the Australian Government.

Pottery (Exports to Western Germany)

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to increase the volume of pottery exports to Western Germany to the value of imports into Britain of German pottery.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: All imports of domestic pottery from Western Germany to the United Kingdom are free of import restrictions. Western Germany retains a quota on the import of earthenware tableware from the United Kingdom; other pottery imports from the United Kingdom are free from restriction. We shall endeavour to secure better treatment for our exports of earthenware tableware in the negotiations which are due to be resumed early in March.

Dr. Stross: While thanking the President for the reassurance which he gave that there will be a review, is it not true that last year we were restricted to about £80,000 worth and that in the first six months of last year Western Germany exported to us £1 million of fancy pottery goods? Will he bear this in mind and realise that north Staffordshire cannot afford to subsidise Western Germany?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Without stating the figures—we do not generally state the figures of a quota—there is no question but that we were put in a disadvantageous position, and we will certainly press this matter to the best of our ability in the talks which are to be resumed.

Czechoslovakia (Talks)

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement concerning the proposed new trade agreement between Britain and Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Chapman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the light of the present situation in the British motor car industry, he will review his ban on the Czechoslovak proposal for the purchase of 1,000 British passenger cars against imports of Czechoslovak goods required by British purchasers.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Czechoslovak Government have accepted our invitation to send a trade and finance delegation to London, and I hope that they will shortly be able to begin talks. Meanwhile, I think it would be better not to comment on matters which may arise in those talks.

Film Industry

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will appoint a committee to survey the future of British film production.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have been giving consideration to the problem of future policy for the film industry and I have decided that at this stage the best course is for me to take steps to obtain the views of the various sections of the industry. This I propose to do and I shall, of course, seek the advice of the Cinematograph Films Council and of the National Film Finance Corporation.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While welcoming that statement, may I ask the President to bear in mind that the British film industry is doomed unless an adequate number of studios is kept in production? Will he consult, in addition to the bodies he has mentioned, the various associations of technicians and actors and the trade unions, who have a vital interest in the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should certainly expect to consult anyone who felt that they had some useful advice and help which they could give to me in matters of this sort.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the President made a major change in film policy last year without consulting anybody in the

industry or the statutory Films Council, will he bear in mind that presumably we shall have a new films Bill by 1958, and will he not institute an inquiry fairly soon into all the questions involved? Will he not institute an inquiry to bring up to date the findings of the Plant-Palache Report on Monopoly in the Film Industry, in 1944, in view of the growing tendency of monopoly in the industry today?

Mr. Thorneycroft: A great number of inquiries have taken place into this rather complex but very interesting industry. I think that the first step I ought to take in considering the policy for the future of the industry is to consult the various interests in it and to see what their views are.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will these discussions include discussion of the so-called Sunday charity levy, to which increasing objection is being taken on all sides?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that would be central to the whole problem of the future of the film industry, but I should certainly not exclude it.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to get some idea of consumer reaction in this field?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If it be possible, although I think consumer reaction is one of the hardest things about which to get any idea. It can be judged only by the number of consumers who go to the films.

Factory, Huyton Industrial Estate

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the reallocation of the factory on the Huyton Industrial Estate formerly occupied by Hosemaster Limited, who ceased production in August last.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Hosemaster Limited have not, after all, quitted this factory, as certain developments are in progress which may result in their resuming production.

Mr. Wilson: Since the factory has remained empty and idle since last August, is it not about time the President took steps about allocating it for full production, as promised in the House last


October? Is he aware that the developments to which he refers are believed by many people to be an attempt to buy up this factory or this company, with all its tax losses, for the purpose of setting them against Income Tax rather than for maintaining full production and full employment?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that perhaps the best thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to have a word with me about this. I shall be happy to listen to anything he has to say about it and I will give him all the information I can.

Stockpiles

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the future of the strategic stockpiles at present held by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The composition of the stockpiles of raw materials for which I am responsible will continue to be determined on the basis of strategic considerations.

Mr. Wilson: Whatever that answer means, if anything, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a very clear statement in a national newspaper last Saturday which suggested that the Government had come to a major decision on the dissipation of these strategic stockpiles? In view of the fact that so many of the Government's intentions seem to be leaking to the Press long before we hear about them in the House, are we to take that statement as an accurate leakage or as pure invention?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can accept no responsibility for what appears in the national Press.

Board of Trade (Staff)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers of civil servants employed in his Department in each of the years from 1946 onwards, and the number it is estimated will be employed at the end of this present year.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With permission, I will circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These show that the present staff of 7,314 represents a reduction of more than 50 per cent. on the 1946 figure. I hope that there will be

some further reduction on this figure by the end of the year but I cannot give a precise estimate at present.

Following are the figures:

BOARD OF TRADE NON-INDUSTRIAL STAFF

End of 1946, 15,247; 1947, 14,207; 1948, 13,067; 1949, 10,456; 1950, 10,092; 1951, 8,429*; 1952, 7,708; 1953, 6,965; 1954, 7,405†; 1955, 7,314‡.

*1,609 staff were transferred to Ministry of Materials during 1951.

†812 staff were transferred from Ministry of Materials to Board of Trade during 1954.

‡247 staff were transferred from Ministry of Supply to Board of Trade during 1955.

Synthetic Rubber Imports (Dollar Cost)

Mr. Proctor: asked the President of the Board of Trade what will be the cost in dollars of the synthetic rubber, the purchase of which has been authorised from the United States of America.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports have been authorised from North America, not specifically from the United States, at an estimated cost of 43 million dollars.

Mr. Proctor: Does the President consider that this expenditure of dollars is justified, in view of the alternative of the purchase in sterling of natural rubber?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think it is generally recognised that some proportion of synthetic rubber is necessary in a flourishing and competitive rubber manufacturing industry. I do not think that imports of this kind lead to a reduction in the total of natural rubber imported.

Mr. Proctor: In view of the uncertainly which the right hon. Gentleman expresses, would he look further into the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have looked fairly closely into it and as a result have given the Answer which I have just given.

Mr. Bottomley: If the President's statement is correct, is it possible to obtain synthetic rubber other than from dollar sources?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This appears to be the best and the most economic source. Indeed, in many ways it is the only source for some types of this rubber.

Mr. Osborne: Is the President aware that preparations are already being made to manufacture synthetic rubber in this


country, and that within a reasonable time we shall be free from having to buy dollar imports of this raw material?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the suggestions for its manufacture in this country.

East-West Trade (Embargo List)

Mr. Proctor: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a current list of all articles which may not be exported from this country to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and a similar list of the articles which may not be exported to China from this country.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The list of goods embargoed for the Soviet countries of Eastern Europe was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 16th October, 1954, and certain subsequent amendments were published on 20th August. 1955. The classes of goods embargoed for China in June, 1951, were published in the Board of Trade Journal of 23rd June of that year. Platform and fork-lift trucks were added in April, 1953. and ordinary passenger cars and sodium peroxide were removed from the list in October, 1953.

Mr. Proctor: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing these in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that an up-to-date statement is easily accessible to us? Is there evidence that our action is preventing either of these countries from obtaining these supplies, or are we merely damaging our own trade? If the China list is larger than the Soviet list, which I understand to be the case, is it not unwise for us to channel our trade with China through the Soviet Union?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The questions which the hon. Gentleman now asks raise much wider issues of the effect and purpose of strategic controls in general. His Question asks what the lists are. I will certainly give consideration to his request and see whether I can publish the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT, if it is not too bulky.

United States Cheese (Imports)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that United States dairy products are being imported into the United Kingdom at prices below those ruling in the world

markets and at the expense of imports of Commonwealth dairy products; and what action he is taking.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir, I am not aware of this. With the exception of cheese no imports of dairy products from the U.S.A. are being authorised at present. Imports of cheese are limited to an annual quota of £1·5 million c.i.f. for North America as a whole. Import licences issued against the quota are not subject to restrictions as to price.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask for an assurance that there is no foundation for the report that Sir Leslie Munro, Her Majesty's New Zealand Ambassador in Washington, made representations to the American Government about the fact that 10,000 tons of United States cheese was being imported into the United Kingdom?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Some United States and Canadian cheese is being imported, but it is in very small quantities compared with our total import arrangements and is under a very strict quota arrangement.

Development Areas (Select Committee's Report)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report on Development Areas by the Select Committee on Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Report is under consideration, and the Board will be commenting on it in due course.

Mr. Jay: Does the President realise that this Report contains a number of inaccurate and misleading statements and that in the opinion of many of my hon. Friends he would be well advised to disregard the majority of its recommendations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think I would be prudent to reserve any comments I have to make on the Report to a later stage.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when considering this Report that the Select Committee on Estimates apparently came to its conclusions and its recommendations—at any


rate in regard to the North-East Lancashire Development Area—on totally misconceived foundations and appeared to think that the case for that area rested only on the degree of unemployment in the area, whereas it really rests upon the overwhelming need for diversification of industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is right in saying that there are other factors than the level of employment at a particular moment which ought to be taken into account.

Mr. Cherwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that all well-informed opinion in the North-East Development Area agrees that there is no case yet for de-scheduling any part of it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: think the questions show that this is a matter upon which varying views can be held. We had better reserve comment until we have all had an opportunity of studying the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates.

Mr. H. Wilson: In considering the Report, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that certainly among those with any knowledge of the Development Areas there is no variation of opinion on the Report at all, and that while no one impugns the hard work done by the members of that Committee, their conscientiousness and sincerity, nevertheless it is a fact that hardly any of them—if any—represent Development Areas or have had any practical experience of dealing with those areas? In considering the evidence supplied to his Department, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the conclusions bear no regard at all to the evidence submitted?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am fully aware of the contribution which has been made to this big problem of diversification, not only by this Government but by preceding Governments, and I am approaching this matter with that thought well in mind.

Miss Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you allow me, as Chairman of this Committee which has made the Report, merely to correct my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in the statement he has just made, in all fairness to the

Select Committee on Estimates? I am not dealing with the merits of the matter, but, if I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, he said that the members of that Committee had had no experience of work in the Development Areas, which is not correct. That is all I wish to say.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is a point of order, but quite obviously we cannot discuss a big and important Report of this character at Question Time.

North-East Lancashire (New Factory)

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade when it is expected that the Mullard factory in the North-East Lancashire Development Area will be in full production; and how many persons of both sexes it is hoped will then be found employment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It is expected that this factory will be in full production by the end of the year and will then employ upwards of 1,000 people, mainly men.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that in the last two years the number of people in the cotton weaving industry in this area has dropped by 7,000, that the migration from the area is about 1,000 per year, and that this one effort is not really sufficient to cope with those appalling circumstances?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the special problems of this area, which the hon. Member has very rightly and properly drawn to my attention on a number of occasions. At the same time, I would say that I think the erection and use of this great new factory will at least make an important contribution to the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Post-War Credits

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) under what circumstances the face value of a post-war credit certificate is reduced when the holder claims payment;
(2) whether his estimate of the amount required for payment of all post-war credit certificates is based upon the


amounts stated on those certificates or upon the amounts noted by the Inland Revenue Department as payable upon those certificates;
(3) what is his estimate of the difference in amount between the amounts stated on outstanding post-war credit certificates and the amounts which will be payable when payment of such certificates falls due.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The post-war credit payable may be less than the face value of the certificate mainly because the full tax due for the relevant year was not actually paid. The amount shown on the certificates was based on the tax payable, but in some cases the actual tax paid may have been less, and this would affect the credit due. Attention is drawn to this by a note on the post-war credit certificates. The face value of the postwar credits outstanding is estimated to be £526 million. The shortfalls in actual payments of tax are likely to reduce this figure by less than 1 per cent.

Mr. Page: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of cases in which just the opposite happens, where more tax has been paid than was due and where, after a wartime payment of tax, there was a reassessment at a lower figure, the post-war credit certificate is written down in the books of the Treasury and the taxpayer is refused a return of the overpayment of tax because more than six years have elapsed? Is he aware that it is rather a shock to the taxpayer, who has kept his post-war credit certificate safely and brings it out when he reaches the appropriate age, to be told that it does not represent the value which is stated on the face of it?

Mr. Brooke: If my hon. Friend will send me the case he has in mind, I will gladly look into it. What we cannot do is to repay tax which has never been paid. What we seek to do is to repay tax which has been paid.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the difficult situation in which he is placing many widows and other dependants who succeed to the credit on survival? The widows are in no position after 15 or 16 years to check up the tax position of their late husbands because no documentary evidence is available to them except in the Treasury.

Mr. Brooke: I am very sorry if anyone is disappointed. Should anyone think that he or she may be liable to that kind of occurrence, he or she can send in the certificates at any time.

Mr. Hirst: It is not a question of disappointment but of a grave injustice to people in the position mentioned by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) who, many years afterwards are informed that they will not get the face value of the certificate. It may be ten, twenty or thirty years afterwards; it is not a question of disappointment but of grave injustice which ought to be corrected.

Mr. Brooke: Every post-war credit bears a note which says that the amount due may not be identical with the amount on the credit; it may be less or may be more.

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to the repayment of post-war credits to all those who produce a medical certificate stating that they suffer from a chronic and incurable disease.

Mr. H. Brooke: I regret that this suggestion cannot be accepted. The difficulties of paying post-war credits earlier on special hardship grounds have often been explained to the House.

Dr. Stross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sum involved here would be small and that the hardship is often very great? Will he please remember that the public accepts that the Treasury has a brain but really feels that it has no heart at all?

Mr. Brooke: I think that have a heart, but the difficulty here is to draw a proper dividing line. If one were to allow payment to the people in question one might still find oneself excluding people whose financial needs might be even greater, such as widows who had nothing at all.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of repaying post-war credits to all applicants who are at present in receipt of National Assistance.

Mr. H. Brooke: I regret this information is not available, nor could it readily be obtained.

Mr. Jeger: Could the right hon. Gentleman not find information quite easily through the National Assistance Board, which deals with its applicants personally? Would not that information help him in solving the problem of how to pay post-war credits to those who are suffering great hardship?

Mr. Brooke: I think that it would be found that two-thirds of those who are receiving National Assistance are over what I might call the post-war credit age, but there will remain always the difficulty of distinguishing between those in permament need and those who go to the National Assistance Board because of purely temporary need.

Cash Gifts (Canada)

Mr. Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money may be sent as a gift in any one year by a relative in the United Kingdom to a relative in Canada.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Cash gifts are only allowed in cases of hardship, the amount depending on the circumstances of each case.

Mr. Holt: Would the Economic Secretary not agree that it would be of great advantage if a small sum were allowed—say £10—for relatives to send to people who have emigrated to Canada? Is not his answer a grave commentary on the party which calls itself the Empire party?

Sir E. Boyle: I can say to the hon. Member that the ban on cash gifts is regularly reviewed when we examine our exchange control restrictions, and some relaxation is high on the list of priorities when circumstances permit.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Albu: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will remove, by Treasury order, the Purchase Tax on domestic heat pumps.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir. These appliances serve the same purpose as electrical heaters and refrigerators and, in fairness, must bear the same tax.

Mr. Albu: Is not the Financial Secretary aware that this appliance, when used in place of an ordinary domestic boiler,

saves at least I ton to 1½tons of coal in a house in a year and that one of the two firms manufacturing them has had to close down now because of the high level of Purchase Tax, with the result that we are losing valuable export orders for this type of appliance?

Mr. Brooke: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said, but on the situation as known to me it would be unfair to the manufacturers of ordinary heaters and refrigerators if these inventions were singled out for tax exemption.

Mr. Usborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his Department has deliberately excluded oil burners which produce heat for domestic purposes from Purchase Tax? Will he tell the House the difference, technically, between an oil burner which is not subject to Purchase Tax and a heat pump which is subject to the tax?

Mr. Brooke: I think that is a rather different question.

Mr. McKibbin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider, when preparing his Budget, permitting limbless ex-Service men aged 55 years and over, who are in receipt of a disability pension of 50 per cent. upwards and who do not qualify for free motor cars, to buy motor cars free of Purchase Tax to enable them to continue going to and from their employment, subject to safeguard as to the sale and disposal of such cars if their owners have no further use for them.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend will bear this suggestion in mind, but there are great difficulties in the way of any such proposal.

Mr. McKibbin: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that men whose lower limbs have been amputated find the manipulation of artificial limbs more irritating as they get older? Is he aware that the average age of victims of the 1914–18 War will be 65 when the Budget is introduced?

Mr. Brooke: I have great sympathy with what my hon. Friend says but, as his Question recognises, there are difficulties in preventing abuse. If one grants one claim of this kind it opens up the question whether other similar claims in different fields might have to be granted.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he now intends to take to secure stability in the purchasing price of the £ sterling.

Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 24th January.

Mr. Fletcher: Nothing was said then about the means that the Government intend to adopt. In view of what has appeared in certain sections of the Press, may we have an assurance that the Government will not take any steps which would lead to unemployment?

Sir E. Boyle: It is always a pleasure to debate economic affairs with the hon. Member, but Question Time is not the best occasion.

Mr. Jay: If the Government really wish to check the rise in the cost of living, is there not one simple and obvious thing they can do; that is, to withdraw the Housing Subsidies Bill?

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of £I now in purchasing power as compared with 20s. purchasing power in May, 1955.

Sir E. Boyle: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in May, 1955, the corresponding figure for December, 1955, is 19s.
This estimate is based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Jeger: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether that is in accordance with the Election pledges given by his party in May, 1955?

Sir E. Boyle: There is no subject to which the Government attach more importance at the present time than the restraining of inflation, and it is through cutting down the excessive pressure of total demand, and only by that means, that prices can become steady.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Under the new Chancellor, is it the cost of living or the standard of living which is to be doubled in twenty-five years?

Sir E. Boyle: I entirely share the view, which I once saw in the hon. Member's

Election address, that it is the standard of living which matters most at all times for all sections of the community.

Travel Allowance (Dollar Area)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise a basic travel allowance of £50 for British subjects visiting the United States of America.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to authorise a travel allowance for the dollar area.

Mr. Johnson: I recognise the great difficulties involved in any proposal which would increase dollar expenditure, but is my hon. Friend aware that such a step would do much to cement our friendship with the United States? Can we have his assurance that it will be done at the earliest possible moment?

Sir E. Boyle: I can only say that this really is not the time to add to our expenditure in foreign currencies.

Visits to U.S.S.R. (Currency)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of currency taken by British subjects to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during 1955, for private, business and official visits, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: The total amount of currency taken by United Kingdom residents to the U.S.S.R. during 1955 for business visits is estimated to be approximately £63,000, for official visits £1,000, and for private travel for special reasons £3,000. No figures are available for the currency taken by United Kingdom tourists.

Dollar Area (United Kingdom Deficit)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated deficit in current transactions between the United Kingdom and the dollar area for the year ending 31st December, 1955, excluding and including United States aid.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that the figures are not yet available. They will be published in about two months' time in the next balance of payments White Paper.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department really so incompetent that it cannot produce these figures within one month of the end of the year? Can the Economic Secretary not now say whether the deficit, excluding American aid, is likely to exceed about £250 million?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member ought to realise that it would be quite impossible for final figures for the current balance with the dollar area in the second half of 1955 yet to have been prepared.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Warbey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to close the dollar gap.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon he hopes to announce new measures for strengthening the United Kingdom balance of payments.

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 24th January, 1956.

Mr. Warbey: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the dollar gap, whatever it is, is a frightening one and is widening, and that urgent steps are required to deal with it? When will his Department get away from the laissez fairenotions of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer and get down to the necessity of restrictive controls on inessential dollar imports?

Sir E. Boyle: This is by no means the first time that the hon. Member has asked me that question. I hope I may have a chance of debating it with him on some future occasion.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman thought he was answering my Question, may I ask him this? Does he realise that all this continued uncertainty is damaging to sterling; and as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has now been in office for about six weeks, can the hon. Gentleman say how soon he will make up his mind about something?

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to what I previously said, but I think that my right hon. Friend's clear statement about the Government's firm intention to maintain the existing parity of the £has

done nothing but good towards confidence in sterling.

Mr. Jay: What action is to be taken to correct the deficit in the balance of payments. That is what I asked.

Dividends and Wages

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his policy towards dividend limitation.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of his policy in respect of the limitation of wages and dividends.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend does not favour the statutory limitation of dividends since it is impracticable to lay down in a Statute standards which would equitably treat all the widely varying circumstances and needs of the companies concerned. But my right hon. Friend proposes to continue the policy of his predecessor in taking every opportunity to impress on all the partners in industry the urgent need for moderation in their claims.

Mr. Lee: Why can Ministers be so specific in urging wage limitations upon employees but always come with this kind of mumbo-jumbo when asked a specific question as to whether they are in favour of dividend restraint? Is the Economic Secretary aware that this sort of thing will never get any kind of support from people who genuinely are concerned about the economic position of the country but who are fed up with the bias shown by the Government in these matters?

Sir E. Boyle: My Answer was reasonably specific both on the point of view of the statutory limitation of dividends and also on the need for restraint.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of approaching this subject on the broadest possible front, so that if there is any question of the limitation of dividends, it shall extend also, preferably by agreement, to the limitation of wages and other inflationary tendencies?

Mr. McKay: What is the benefit of the limitation of dividends if prices can still be raised? Would the Economic Secretary consider the principle of operating a maximum price limit so long as the average earnings of any industry, or its


total profits before taxation, were not below the average of 1953, 1954 and 1955? Would he then consider some special concession in taxation to any industry which reduced its prices?

Sir E. Boyle: I know the hon. Member's sincerity in these matters but they are issues which are much too wide to discuss now.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the complete failure of the policy of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, is it really beyond the wit of the hon. Gentleman and of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer to think of something new in this direction? May I ask him carefully to avoid any measures on a broad front?

Sir E. Boyle: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that neither dividends nor Stock Exchange prices ever rose faster than during the three months after the April Budget of 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Credit Policy

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the growing fears that a continuation of the credit squeeze may precipitate an industrial slump; and what action he proposes to take to restore confidence to industry.

Sir E. Boyle: As my right hon. Friend said, on 24th January, in reply to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), we shall continue to press forward with the policy of restraining inflation. The restriction of credit is an essential part of that policy and must therefore continue.

Mr. Lee: How do we judge of the success of this policy? Is it to be the number of bankruptcies among small firms or the number of employees who are on short time or unemployed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade unions are getting very apprehensive indeed of the results of this policy?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member is, I am sure, aware that it is sheer nonsense for anyone to suggest that we are now on the edge of an industrial slump. The problem is still that of restraining inflation, as he himself will be well aware.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Economic Secretary aware that the credit squeeze has worked in a way which leaves the big industrial giants almost untouched in their economic policies and is having the gravest effect on a lot of small men and businesses throughout the country? Since the hon. Gentleman says that the problem facing us is still one of inflation, will he now recognise, as is widely accepted, that the credit squeeze is not solving the problem? Will he confirm or deny that the Government have now decided to introduce a measure of physical control?

Sir E. Boyle: In my Answer, I was careful to say that the restriction of credit is an essential part of the policy of restraining inflation. I do not unsay one word of what I said last year in defence of the autumn Budget.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of all the uncertainty on this question and its vital importance, will not the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him about physical controls? If the credit squeeze is part of the policy, will he say whether physical controls—for instance, on building licensing—are also part of the Government's policy?

Sir E. Boyle: As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, that question is quite different from the one on the Order Paper.

Fixed Capital Investment (Manufacturing Industry)

Mr. Lee: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the totals of fixed capital formation in manufacturing industry in 1951 and in 1954; and what percentage of the national income these figures represent.

Sir E. Boyle: As shown in the National Income Blue Book, 1955, Table 48, fixed capital formation in manufacturing industry was £532 million in 1951 and £584 million in 1954. These figures represent, respectively, 4·2 and 3·7 per cent. of the gross national product.

Mr. Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, considering that the base of industry has been considerably enlarged since 1951, it is most disappointing to get figures of that nature as representing the kind of investment in manufacturing industry? How does he think that


industry can modernise itself and compete in the present-day world if that kind of result is to be obtained?

Sir E. Boyle: I entirely share the hon. Member's concern for a high level of investment in industry. It has been precisely for that reason that the Government have sought to restrain inflation to a considerable extent by restraining consumer demand rather than investment.

Price Stabilisation (British Petroleum Company)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to aid the movement for stabilising prices, he will ask the British Petroleum Company to give an undertaking not to increase the price of petrol during the next twelve months.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister bear in mind that in the case of this Government-owned company the Government have an opportunity of showing whether there is any sincerity in then-appeal for moderation in profits and dividends? Why are the Government so chary of setting an example in the case of an undertaking which is controlled by the Government and which has been showing handsome profits?

Sir E. Boyle: As I have said on a good many occasions, the Government do not interfere with the day-to-day operations of this company.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply——

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Castle.

Members of Parliament (Sessional Allowance)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of Members of Parliament who are uplifting the sessional allowance of £2 per day; the approximate annual value of this allowance; and the net average value to each Member after Income Tax reduction.

Mr. H. Brooke: On 30th January, 1956, 522 hon. Members were claiming Sessional Allowance. The maximum which can be drawn in the current financial

year is about £280, but some hon. Members may draw less. The allowance is a contribution towards the necessary expenses of hon. Members, on which they would otherwise be entitled to claim tax relief, and they are not expected to draw Sessional Allowance in excess of their necessary expenses. The net value varies according to the level of expenses of different hon. Members and their personal circumstances, and I cannot give an average figure.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that newspaper reports to the effect that there will be a supplementary question to this Question, asking about Members' salaries, are entirely without foundation?

Non-Industrial Civil Servants

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number of civil servants in 1947, 1951, and 1955, respectively.

Mr. H. Brooke: On 1st October, 1955, the number of non-industrial civil servants employed was 636,098. The comparable figures for 1951 and 1947 were 685,447 and 679,144.

Capital Gains

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now introduce a tax on capital gains.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to add at this season to the reply given by his predecessor on 12th July, 1955, to a similar Question from the right hon. Member.

Mr. Jay: Does the Financial Secretary realise that he will have to do better than that, and that we are one of the few industrial countries left without a tax of this kind? Does he realise that many salary earners and wage earners feel increasingly that it is unfair that these gains should be tax-free?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the case for and the case against such a tax was argued at length in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, a Report which is now under consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Income Tax (Fines for Parking Offences)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the Board of Inland Revenue allows fines for parking offences to be included as business expenses for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. H. Brooke: Fines imposed for such breaches of the law are not admissible as a deduction in computing profits for tax purposes.

Mr. Wilson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he is aware of a statement made by a learned magistrate at Marlborough Street a week or two ago in which he said that he was bringing such a case to the attention of the Inland Revenue authorities? It was a case in which a man who had been fined said to the police constable that he always regarded that as a business expense.

Mr. Brooke: What I say is fact. What this person said to the magistrate or the police in that event was evidently not a fact.

Ports (Customs Facilities)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary to the Treasury (1) from which Customs and Excise station suitable officials are supplied to provide "on call" Customs at the ports of Billingham, Gateshead, Jarrow and Seaham Harbour;
(2) on how many occasions in the calendar year 1955 it was necessary to provide "on call" Customs facilities at Billingham, Gateshead, Jarrow and Seaham Harbour; and at what cost to the Treasury.

Mr. H. Brooke: Billingham and Gateshead lie within the ports of Middlesbrough and Newcastle respectively; Jarrow is partly in Newcastle and partly in the port of South Shields. The Customs work at these places is dealt with by the permanent staff of these ports as part of their normal duties. A Customs officer is stationed at Seaham Harbour to deal with Customs and Excise work there. There is, therefore, no need to arrange for "on call" attendance at any of these four places, and the second Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1955 he told me that "on

Call" Customs facilities were available at all these ports? If the stations mentioned by him can provide offices for "on call" Customs at those four ports in the North-East, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is not possible to find them for Greatham?

Mr. Brooke: There are permanent staff available at all those four ports. The aerodrome in which the hon. Gentleman is interested was found during an experiment to have very little traffic, and it was deemed not to justify the provision of "on call" facilities.

Mr. Jones: Is it not the case that some of those ports had less traffic in 1955 than the airport?

Mr. Brooke: No, that is not so.

Oral Answers to Questions — JORDAN (JAMMING OF BROADCASTS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister the nature of the technical assistance being given by Her Majesty's Government to the Jordan Government to enable them to jam broadcasts from Cairo to Jordan.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The Jordan Government bought some transmitters in this country. The one British engineer who travelled with the equipment for initial servicing returned within a few days to the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Daily Maillast Saturday a statement was published that the jamming of the "Voice of Araby" broadcasts was going on regularly and required the co-operation of highly qualified technicians employed and sent out by the British Foreign Office? Does this therefore mean that Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with the Jordan Government's jamming of this radio? If not, what action do Her Majesty's Government intend to take about the matter?

Mr. Butler: I have read the extract from the newspaper to which the hon. Lady refers. I am sure that she will be the first to realise that the use which the Jordan Government may subsequently make of these transmitters must be a matter for the discretion of the Jordan Government, with which I cannot interfere or answer for in the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order. May I now, Mr. Speaker, complete the sentence which I tried to initiate a moment or two ago? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to Question No. 43, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE (REMOVAL OF DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Jones—Question No. 59.

Mr. Hyde: On a point of order. You have not called Question 58, which is in my name, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member's Question was withdrawn.

Mr. Hyde: It was not.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. David Jones.

Mr. Hyde: Further to that point of order. I asked the Table to withdraw the Question if it were not reached.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member ought not to give such hypothetical instructions. Mr. David Jones.

Mr. Hyde: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, am I not right in saying that it is customary to ask the Table to withdraw a Question if it is not reached?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the custom has grown up for a Member to ask for his Question to be withdrawn if it is not reached, but I understood that the hon. Gentleman's Question was definitely withdrawn.

Mr. Hyde: No, Sir, only if ft were not reached. I asked that in that event it should be put off until next Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Hyde: asked the Secretary to the Treasury why two bundles of documents relating to Queen Caroline, wife of King George IV, covering the years 1804 to 1820, have been removed from the Public Record Office; and where they are now located and whether they can be seen by students.

Mr. H. Brooke: The documents concerned were, on examination in 1935, considered to be not public records or

State papers but part of the Sovereign's private family archives. They were accordingly transferred, with the written authority of the then Master of the Rolls and the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the Public Record Office to the Royal Archives at Windsor, where they now remain and where, it is understood, they are not open to inspection.

Mr. Hyde: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these papers arrived at the Public Record Office over a hundred years ago from the old State Paper Office, and that they remained there for the best part of a century, where they were seen by the public? Will he make it clear now that they were eventually transferred to Windsor, not on account of the nature of their contents but because of their character?

Mr. Brooke: My information is that they were transferred because of their private nature.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of the Motion relating to the Parliamentary constituency of Mid-Ulster, which it is hoped to obtain by about 6 p.m.
Second Reading of the Licensing (Airports) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Report and Third Reading of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill.
Second Reading of the Police (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. This is largely a consolidation Measure.
THURSDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Bill.
FRIDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he can tell us when the debate on capital punishment will take place, and, also, whether he can give us an assurance that the debate will be open to a free vote of the House?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the wish of the House as a whole to debate the question of capital punishment. I cannot give an exact date for the debate, but I can say that it will take place within the next two or three weeks. I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately on his return from North America with a view to being able to let the House know when such a debate will take place. No final decision has been taken on the question of a free vote, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman to attach importance to this aspect of the question——

Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Gaitskellindicated assent.

Mr. Butler: —and I will bear in mind the importance he attaches to it when the final decision is taken.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government will find time for a debate on the economic situation, with special reference to the cost of living, in view of the further remarks made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury this afternoon?

Mr. Butler: I am aware, also, that there is a desire for a debate on the economic situation. But I cannot undertake that it will take place in the immediate future; for example, it is not likely to take place next week, in view of the business we have announced. I will bear in mind the desire of hon. Members for such a debate and will discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend think that the question of the Leader of the Opposition meant that at last the Opposition want to debate the Phillips Report?

Mr. Butler: It might be a good thing if the hon. Lady put herself in touch with the leader of the Opposition in order to find out for herself?

Mr. Lee: Can the Leader of the House say whether he has now had sufficient time to study the vitally important Motion on the Order Paper signed by over 100 hon. Members, relating to living costs? If so, could he now announce a date for its debate?

[That this House is gravely concerned at the unprecedented increase in living costs during a period when world prices favour their reduction; declares itself completely opposed to those economic policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government which have been responsible for this increase, and condemns the Government for the irresponsible manner in which it continues to jeopardise industrial peace in pursuit of partisan ends.]

Mr. Butler: When I announced business last week I drew attention to this Motion, a copy of which I have with me for greater accuracy. I realise that when the economic situation is discussed it would be appropriate to pay attention to the important issues raised in the Motion.

Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the question of the proposed debate on capital punishment, has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to certain statements in some of the newspapers this morning that there is a procedural difficulty which might stand in the way of the House doing what it wishes to do in this matter? If so, can he assure the House that there is no such difficulty?

Mr. Butler: The question of procedural difficulty depends upon a Ruling from the Chair and I would not presume to intervene in that matter. I am satisfied, however, that the view of the Prime Minister, as stated on 24th November, that it would be difficult for the Government, for example, to give precedence to a Private Member's Bill, still prevails. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that we should be prevented from having a debate. All these matters are under discussion in the highest quarters and through the usual channels, and I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that his sincerity, and that of his hon. Friends,


in wishing to have such a debate, should not be thwarted, in my view, by any procedural difficulties if we can possibly avoid it.

Sir F. Medlicott: As the Licensing (Airports) Bill contains questions of principle connected with the sale of alcohol, and may to some extent cut across the normal Parliamentary lines, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is a possibility of a free vote being allowed?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Although the question of alcohol is an important one, I should prefer this to remain a Government Measure and not have a free vote on this side of the House.

Mr. Gaitskeil: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Opposition intend to have a free vote on that Bill?

Mr. Beswick: May I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider his answer to his hon. Friend? The fact that it has been found necessary to bring forward the Licensing (Airports) Bill on a Tuesday is an indication of the deep opposition among hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, since it creates an offence in their minds and to their consciences, would he not reconsider his decision and allow a free vote?

Mr. Butler: I have noted the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about the party opposite, but, as at present advised, I see no reason to revise the attitude of the Government towards maintaining this Bill as a Government Measure.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the salutary importance of the publication earlier this week of the first of the independent reviews of a nationalised industry, namely, the electricity industry, and the fact that the affairs of this important nationalised undertaking have not been debated in the House for two years, can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible at an early date to debate both the Report and the affairs of the industry?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am, of course, aware of the contents of the Report. As it has only just appeared, however, it would be as well for hon. Members to have a little longer to study it before we consider the possibility of debating it. This is also tied up with the study which is being urgently undertaken with a view to

ascertaining how we can best consider the position of the nationalised industries in this House. The Report is a separate issue, and I think we should consider it when we have had more time to study it.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's admission a little while ago that jamming of broadcasts in Jordan is now taking place with the technical co-operation of the British Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes: the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that the technician who has aided in the installation of the equipment is employed by the British Foreign Office—will he find time for a discussion of the Motion on jamming of broadcasts which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker), my name, and the names of a number of our hon. Friends?

[That this House deplores the decision by Her Majesty's Government to authorise the jamming of broadcasts from foreign transmitters and calls on Her Majesty's Government to reaffirm the traditional British acceptance of the principle of free speech in whatever form.]

Mr. Butler: I must state the position in regard to the Government of Jordan as I stated it in answer to the hon. Lady's Question earlier this afternoon and not go back on any of the statements that I then made. As for Parliamentary time for a debate on jamming, I must warn the House that we are already very full up with business and that the claims on the time for public business in respect of debates, Motions and Bills are such that I can give no undertaking that time will be found at present.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the immense importance of the debate on economic affairs, the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part, and the misunderstanding that there is both in the House and in the country on economic affairs, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is possible to have a two-day debate instead of one day so that back benchers on both sides of the House may have a fair chance of catching Mr. Speaker's eye?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I must consider the desires of hon. Members on both sides of the House when we arrange the business in this fashion.

Mr. C. Pannell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is any great enthusiasm on the benches behind him to discuss the Guillebaud Report?

Mr. Butler: The word "enthusiasm" is not one which I should have chosen, but there is a general feeling that the Report has shown how valuable the Health Service is. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have always been in the van of social progress, it is virtually very satisfactory for them to read the Report to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. It may well be, however, that certain criticisms of the Report may also be raised by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would not only be desirable for his hon. Friends to read the Report, but, in view of his statement that the Conservative Party regards itself as in the van of progress, it would also be desirable for them to give expression to their pleasure at the Report? Will he, therefore, find time for a debate on the subject?

Mr. Butler: I cannot undertake that there will be time for a debate on the subject as we are just entering the very busy period of the Votes on Account and Supply, but I will say that if hon. Members on all sides of the House will study the Report we shall be all the more ready for a debate, perhaps on a Supply Day provided by the Opposition.

Mr. Bevan: As there are certain recommendations in the Report concerning the capital expenditure on the Health Service and the undesirability of the level of charges, will the right hon. Gentleman make proposals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include some of the recommendations in his Budget?

Mr. Butler: I was unable to give any advance information about my own Budgets, and it would be far from me to give any advance information about my right hon. Friend's Budget.

Mr. Bevan: I did not ask for that. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that he may include these proposals in his Budget?

Mr. J. T. Price: While the House will welcome the announcement made by the Leader of the House that legislation will be brought forward next week to extend safety and welfare provisions to the agricultural industry, will he note that in hundreds of thousands of shops and non-industrial establishments there is great disappointment that the recommendations of the Gowers Committee Report have not yet been applied to such establishments? Can the right hon. Gentleman state the Government's intentions in this respect?

Mr. Butler: I can only say that this is one of the recommendations of the Gowers Report. We cannot take them all at the same time. The fact that we have given priority to one recommendation does not mean that we are not interested in the position of the shops. That is as important, but it must take its time in coming forward.

Mr. D. Jones: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), which draws attention to the unfair criticism of London bus drivers which was made recently by a London magistrate? Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate that Motion?

[That this House regrets the comments made by Mr. Geoffrey Raphael, the Marylebone magistrate, reflecting upon the general conduct of drivers of public service vehicles in London during the hearing of a case before him on Tuesday, 24th January, 1956; places on record its appreciation of the high standard of safety and courtesy maintained by the crews of public service transport in London under the ever-growing congestion of London traffic; and believes that it is not in the public interest that magistrates should resort to unwarrantable charges against omnibus drivers and Metropolitan Police.]

Mr. Butler: My attention has been drawn to the Motion, a copy of which I have here, but I can give no undertaking at present, important as we all realise the subject to be, to find time for its early discussion.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

ARMY ORGANISATION

Mr. John Hall: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for the appointment of an all-party committee of investigation into the organisation of the Army, and move a Resolution.

ARMY (STAFF DUTIES)

Mr. Rawlinson: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a review of staff duties with a view to streamlining headquarters and formation saffs, and move a Resolution.

ARMY (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. McKibbin: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the lack of barracks, married quarters and military hospital accommodation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.

TRANSPORT (RURAL AREAS)

Mr. Vane: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the problems of transport in rural areas, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (TRANSPORT COMMAND)

Mr. Maclay: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to Transport Command, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS

Mr. Bottomley: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a Select Committee to inquire into the Royal Dockyards, and move a Resolution.

OLDER PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Lagden: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the employment of older men and women, and move a Resolution.

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICE

Dr. D. Johnson: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a comprehensive domiciliary psychiatric service, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (MANPOWER)

Mr. D. Howell: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for a review of the use of manpower in the Royal Air Force, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (TECHNICAL TRAINING)

The Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of technical training in the nuclear age in the Royal Air Force, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL NAVY (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT)

Mr. Doughty: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the research and development programme for the Royal Navy, and move a Resolution.

SHIPBUILDING

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to shipbuilding, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st February].

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 5.—(POWER TO INCREASE SUBSIDIES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Discussion of this Clause has not been as extensive as we would have liked, but, accepting the fact that this is a very controversial Bill—we might almost say a vicious piece of class legislation—we must perhaps discipline ourselves in our discussion of it.
The Bill is unfair throughout. When attention has been called to the unfairness and hardship which is created by Clauses 1, 2 and 3, the invariable reply of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary has been that such cases could be dealt with under the powers given to the Minister in Clause 5.
The power to make grants is a smokescreen behind which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have hidden when attention has been called to the failings of the Bill, which has been done both inside and outside the House. The Minister's attention has been called on a number of occasions to the conference of the Urban District Councils' Association which ruthlessly criticised the Bill and demanded its withdrawal. With, no doubt, a brief from the Tory Party Central Office, the good Tories who were delegates at the conference tried to defend the Government against the criticism by using practically the same argument as that used by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir Robert Grimston: I should like to say, from the point of view of accuracy, as the hon. Gentleman and I were both at the conference, that so far as I know none of the vice-presidents of the (Conservative Party made a speech there. The speeches which were made by myself did not deal with the merits of the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman will recollect that

when he spoke at the conference he referred to the fact that I had been non-controversial. I think that that should be said in order to get it right on the record.

Mr. Lindgren: Most certainly. It was never my intention to infer that any Tory Member of the House of Commons associated with the Urban District Councils' Association made a statement. I was referring to the Tory delegates—those councillors attending the conference who were obviously of Tory persuasion. They, at least, were talking from Tory Central Office briefs. They defended the Government's action against the criticism of various delegates on the ground that all the failings in the Bill to which various delegates had called attention could be dealt with under the provisions of Clause 5.
We have had discussion on various Amendments to Clause 5. When we have tried to pin down the Minister with actual examples of what has been happening, or was likely to happen, in various constituencies, he has always evaded the subject and given no definite reply. An outstanding example of that was when the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) called attention to the difficulties likely to arise in his own constituency, and particularly in the sparsely populated rural areas of Wales. Similar difficulties arise in many other constituencies.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman received no answer from the Minister as to whether the difficulties of the sparsely populated rural areas were likely to be met by grants payable under Clause 5. My view is—and unless it is corrected it will at least be on record as a view expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill—that rural areas such as those represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members will not receive any help under this Clause.
4.0 p.m.
The Clause is so drawn that there is no yardstick at all. No local authority, even one with a learned clerk who is a lawyer, will be able to study Clause 5 and say that under its conditions the circumstances obtaining in its district, rural, urban, or small borough, are such that they will receive consideration from the Minister. The Minister cannot complain


if we insinuate that the Clause is a smokescreen behind which the Minister can hide from the criticisms about the harsh working of other Clauses. The Clause refers to urgent need for houses. I know of no area in which the need for houses for ordinary folk does not exist.
Another qualification is that the houses have to be provided by the authority. In the Second Reading debate I called attention to the fact that it is because of the failure and inability of private enterprise to provide housing for ordinary people that local authorities undertook the task. Practically no houses have been provided for the working class on an investment basis since the Public Health Act, 1875.
Another qualification is that the Minister wants to be satisfied that the new housing scheme will not lead to an unreasonable rate burden in the area, or unreasonably high rents, taking into account the rent subsidies of all the houses in the area, for the burden of the new houses will be spread over all. To put it into simple language, before any local authority can receive any assistance on any scheme it will have greatly to increase rates. If the Minister does not think those rates are sufficiently high, he will tell the authority to raise the money it needs through rates, and if he does not think the rents are high enough, he will tell the authority to raise its rents. The two factors that emerge from Clause 5 are higher rates and higher rents.
As I have just suggested in referring to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the areas which will be hardest hit because of scarceness of population, low rateable value and the spread of the population within the area, will be the rural areas, which will certainly not have a pool of houses over which to spread the extra burden. I expect that the Minister's excuse for the lack of houses provided in the rural areas is that there will be no likelihood of any urgent need. The Tory Party's policy being to run down agriculture and depopulate the rural areas, the houses would not be needed.
None of the worth-while Amendments—apart from those which are purely drafting in character—has been accepted during the Committee stage of the Bill. We think that Clause 5 will not be used by the Minister and that local authorities, to whose responsibility for housing the

Minister often refers, will not be able to expect any help from the Clause.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. and hon. Friends have made critical speeches during the course of our debates on various Amendments. The observations which I am about to make I do not make only on my own behalf, although I readily associate myself with them. I have been instructed on behalf of the city which I and two of my hon. Friends have the privilege to represent in the House of Commons to find out from the Minister how the Clause will be interpreted. It would, therefore, have been wrong for us to have allowed this opportunity to pass without carrying out the desires of the city which we represent.
To lead up to the questions which I want to put, it will be necessary to sketch a short background of the great record of that city and to plead with the Minister that there should be placed upon the Clause the most generous interpretation possible, having regard to the limitations which will be imposed upon him by the Bill. Relatively, Stoke-on-Trent has the greatest housing record in the country—and I emphasise the word "relatively." Other authorities in the area are delighted with the record. But the city now finds that it is having to carry out a great slum clearance plan. Superimposed upon that is the development proposal and other proposals to which I shall be bound to refer if I am to do justice to the questions which I have been asked to put.
I propose to quote one or two concrete cases, so that the Minister may give specific replies. However, the difficulty in which the city council finds itself is that it prepared a plan for the rebuilding of the whole of the city. That took some time. The next step in the procedure was a public inquiry. I attended that inquiry and those of us who have been brought up in productive industry could not help but look with indignation on the large number of representatives of the legal profession who were there to defeat plans at which the city council had democratically arrived.
The inquiry went on for days. The plan was then submitted to the Ministry, but to date the Ministry has not sanctioned it. Because of the urgency of its problems, the city has, therefore, been forced to carry out the plan in accordance


with what Clause 5 will allow. That brings me to the concrete example which I want to quote.
In the centre of my division is the Heathcote Road, Longton, clearance area. The people who live in that area, as did their forefathers for generations, have torn out mountains of wealth, very little of which has been spent in the area, but which has gone towards making this country grow. Certain sections of the country in particular have benefited as a result of that toil. As a result of ruthless private enterprise this area stands as a black picture blitzed by that enterprise. The city urgently desires to carry out a programme of slum clearance, but there is the difficulty created by mining subsidence and of carrying out the plan as a whole.
In the Heathcote area, notices have been given to property owners regarding slum clearance. Straight away, of course, there has been legal quibbling. Those of us who remember the days of discussion on workmen's compensation here will know what that means. The indigation arising from it is reflected on the city council. I cannot do justice to that indignation in this Committee because of the limitations imposed on me by the Standing Orders. But I have done my duty by referring to it. As I have said, there is the additional difficulty of mining subsidence. Some houses should be pulled down because the walls are cracking. There are also houses which ought to be pulled down because they are substandard.
My first plea is that we may have a definite answer on this matter. I wish to know whether property in the whole of that area will be eligible for a subsidy and whether it will be treated in the same way as I understood the Minister to say that the Worsley area would be dealt with. I admit that they are not parallel cases. In the city plan——

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Has the hon. Member now finished discussing that point? I wish to be clear about exactly what it is he is asking, because I wish to give him a clear answer.

Mr. Smith: I appreciate that interjection by the Minister. I have finished

what I wished to say about the Heathcote clearance area, but there are other questions I wish to ask.

Mr. Sandys: What is it for which the hon. Gentleman is asking? I understand that this is a slum clearance area inside the City of Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Smith: Yes.

Mr. Sandys: Is the hon. Gentleman asking what subsidy or grant will be applicable to that area?

Mr. Smith: No. Let us be clear. In that slum area there are sub-standard houses and properties which will have to be pulled down if the city is to do justice to the whole area. There are other houses affected by mining subsidence which should be pulled down. That is the answer. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman is asking for what?

Mr. Smith: That the subsidy payable to the maximum extent shall be payable for the whole of that area.

Mr. Sandys: Under Clause 5, or under the earlier provisions for slum clearance subsidies?

Mr. Smith: Under Clause 5. Is it clear now?

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandysindicated assent.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Smith: We are now in Committee and it is right that we should interrogate one another with a view to arriving at an understanding. That is the way in which Committees used to be run.
Further—I speak about this with a certain amount of pride and I wish it were being done throughout the whole country—the city also has a very fine plan. I am not allowed to say too much about that, because if I did I should be out of order. The city has made representations to the Ministry and on 7th September of last year this is what the councillors and officials who met Ministry representatives were told about this kind of case:
The meeting was held to consider matters relating to slum clearance and redevelopment particularly with regard to procedure and to expedite dealing with clearance areas.


Later, the following points were considered:
It was also suggested that individual houses within a declared clearance area might become dangerous to the tenants and ought to be dealt with in advance of the ordinary procedure.
It is possible to go into some houses and see walls that are cracked, and in others the floors are giving way. While we are doing the job of slum clearance and redevelopment, it would be bad business not to deal with the whole area at one time and also, were this not done, it would have an irritating effect upon the people living there.
The Ministry stated that the corporation should, under no circumstances, endeavour to run different procedures at the same time.
I should like to know whether that is still the position.
It was pointed out that under individual demolition orders, the appeal was to the county court; under a clearance order the inquiry was made by the Ministry and the two things should not run simultaneously.
It would be helpful to many areas in the industrial North if we could obtain a clear answer about that matter.
In the case of houses becoming actually dangerous, the Ministry suggested that there should be no difficulty in coming to an agreement with the landlord in advance of the inquiry …
Well, obviously, the Ministry officials do not know the landlords or they would not have said a thing like that to the city officials.
The Ministry said they were not in favour of this proposal and it would not be considered unless the council is unable to clear slums in five years.
This is further complicated by the fact that the mineral valuers and the surveyors have recently made a survey in that area and under this city, from which have been taken millions of tons of coal in the past. There are still millions of tons left; and with the adoption of modern methods of mining, the city will suffer even more.
Stoke has already built some fine houses, something like those in the Wythenshawe scheme, but on a smaller scale, which are the pride of all who see them. But we must deal with the slum clearance areas in order to house people as near the centre of the city as possible. Local shopkeepers are having a great deal to say about this. If the Minister cannot give a satisfactory reply today, a statement should be made as soon as possible

so that responsible city aldermen, councillors and officials will know where they stand. They desire to proceed with the work of slum clearance and redevelopment as quickly as possible.

Mr. Clement Davies: I make no apologies to the Committee for intervening in the debate, because the whole future of housing in both the urban and rural areas of my county will depend upon the interpretation which is put upon the Clause. The question whether not only the future but the present programme can or can not be continued will depend upon the Clause being given a narrow or a generous interpretation.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) represent large industrial areas. My county is really a rural area. But I do not wish to confine myself entirely to conditions in my county; similar conditions are to be found in the other non-industrial counties in Wales. A 1d. rate produces roughly the same amount in Anglesey, Merioneth, Montgomery, Radnor, and Cardigan and a little more in Caernarvon—namely, between £700 and £800. My county is a complete rural unit. The only other which is in exactly the same position is Radnor, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) is not here to speak for his small county.
It is right that I should give the background of these rural areas. The Minister is given an administrative discretion in this matter, and the way in which he interprets the Clause now will largely influence the interpretation given to it by those who succeed him. What is more, that interpretation will either encourage or discourage the smaller and poorer councils. My county is one of the most productive, agriculturally, in the whole of Britain. Its agricultural production is greater than that of any other county in Wales, although it is not the largest in area. Yet its 1d. rate produces only about £730.
The administration is carried on by eleven councils—the county council, four rural councils and six urban councils, of which four are boroughs. Building costs are abnormally high. Bricks, mortar and timber have to be carried long distances, and workers have to travel long distances from their homes to the sites of their


work. Costs are much higher than they are in more compact areas and industrial districts.
Rates are also abnormally high. These little boroughs have no industries to support them—except in the case of Newtown and Llanidloes. Even in the urban areas the rates vary from 24s. 6d. in the case of Welshpool to 31s. 8d. in the case of my own borough, Llanfyllin.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to say how the level of rateable value has been affected by the revaluation?

Mr. Davies: Not yet; we are still waiting to work that out. I am very anxious about it. I do not think that there is very much variation, because the position has been so difficult that the assessment authorities have been very vigilant. In the rural areas the lowest rate is 23s. 9d. It is low because the main part of the rates is paid by Liverpool Corporation. Lake Vyrnwy reservoir is there, and the Liverpool Corporation is far and away our biggest ratepayer. In the Newtown rural area the rate goes up to 29s. l0d.
A few days ago I sent the Minister a letter which I had received from the Clerk of the Newtown Rural Council, describing the position of a little village within that rural district. It is the charming little village of Llandinam, situated about eight miles from Newtown and five miles from Llanidloes. It was decided that this village would be a suitable spot at which to erect half a dozen bungalows. The authority, making its estimates in the light of the existing circumstances, concluded that the rents would be about £2 4s. a week, exclusive of rates, and of water rates, and said, "If that is to be our position we cannot possibly erect those houses, as no one can afford to rent them."
Let us consider that rent in connection with the two nearest towns. A man living in the village will have to travel eight miles to Newtown or five miles to Llanidloes. In addition, his wife will have to travel that distance to do shopping. That is the position which exists in all these rural areas. It will be recollected that I condemned the houses of most of the councils in Wales in very strong terms in 1939. Many men and women and little children living in Newtown are still housed in huts. Some are

occupied by families where the father has served six years in the Services. Whether or not proper housing is provided for them in the future will depend upon the interpretation which is placed upon the Clause.
I conclude by referring again to the little borough whose name English Members find it difficult to pronounce. It is my native borough, the borough of Llanfyllin. The letter from the Clerk says:
In June last the Council decided to proceed with a further instalment of 16 houses. They were led to believe that they could reasonably expect to let those with two bedrooms at an economic rent (inclusive of rates)"—
which, as I have already said, are very high—
of less than 30s. per week, and those with three bedrooms at a slightly higher rent. In order to be sure (as they thought) that houses with such rents could be built, they had first obtained (after prolonged and strenuous efforts) an assurance from the Ministry that the houses would attract the special subsidies under Section 3 (2) of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946 … The Council had made it clear that they could not proceed unless the special subsidies were available and it was only after receiving the assurance on 25th May last that they entered into their contract.
Within a few weeks of sealing the contract the P.W.L.B. rates of interest were raised, that applicable here being raised from 4 per cent. to 4¼ per cent. and this coupled with the wage increases, etc., raised the probable rents to 31s. 3d. and 34s. 5d. respectively. The whole effect of the special subsidies was wiped out overnight. Then came the last increase on 6th September from 4¼ per cent. to 5¾ per cent, which will entail economic rents (inclusive of rates) of 36s. 3d. and 39s. 5d. respectively. You will appreciate that the council does not take up the loan until the money is required and then only in instalments as, otherwise, they would be saddled with heavy loan charges to meet which no rents would be coming in. Further, the rate of interest charged is that prevailing when the money is taken up so that in our case the rate of interest charged on the whole £29,700 involved is 5 per cent.
You will know from your personal knowledge of this locality how hopeless it will be to let the houses continuously at such inflated rents (inflated so far as this town is concerned) and with a general rate of 31s. 8d. in the £ it is unthinkable that the tenants should be further subsidised from the general rate. On the other hand, there is no doubt that houses are urgently needed here both for our own people and others anxious to come and live here.
Something very definitely is required to be done to adjust rents to reasonable proportions.


4.30 p.m.
I will not read any more. The letter makes plain to the Committee what our conditions are.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What are the main occupations?

Mr. Davies: The town largely depends on agriculture. Some people are engaged on farms, and others on roads, in shops and anything of that kind.
It is a little town with only 1,000 inhabitants. Very often it is said that we have no unemployment problem. That is true, because the moment our young boys and girls are ready for employment they leave the town and seek employment in the industrial areas. That is largely causing our poverty. We are the only county south of the Grampians where the population is less than it was about 155 years ago, and it is steadily decreasing. It is going down also because of the lack of amenities and of proper houses.
Unless the Clause is given a generous interpretation and effect, the conditions that have prevailed up to now will grow worse and my population will go down more rapidly than ever.

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Minister made his statement on the Clause as early as possible. I know that something was said about it yesterday on certain Amendments, but as the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, and some of their hon. Friends, have taken refuge in this Clause on several occasions, perhaps he would like to explain what he means by the Clause and how he will interpret it later, so that we might be put in possession of his views.

Mr. Charles Royle: I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), but I want to ask a question so that when the Minister replies, as my right hon. Friend has requested, he can include a reply to me.
We have just heard an impassioned appeal from the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). We can appreciate the problems he has in mind. His appeal for a more elastic interpretation should not be neglected by the Minister. We had a long discussion last evening about the area I represent, and I do not want to start it all over

again because the name of Salford seemed to ring through this Committee most of the day. I want to refer to Clause 5 (1, a) which states that where
there is urgent need for more housing accommodation which will only be met if that accommodation is provided by that authority
the Minister will have power to grant a higher subsidy.
Will the Minister tell me exactly what "certain circumstances," in the rubric, means? Will he say, without any "ifs" and "buts," that his mind is not closed to an application from an authority like Salford in reference to the matters which were raised yesterday and which the right hon. Gentleman resisted?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson): The Question is, "That Clause——

Mr. Bevan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to intervene?

Mr. Sandys: I intended to intervene. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said that the grants under Clause 5 were no more than a smokescreen behind which the Government were sheltering. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary described them as a "net." That was perhaps a more true description. The purpose is very much the same as that of Section 7 of the 1946 Act, to pick up cases of financial difficulty.
The whole basis of the Bill is that the Government believe that local authorities can build the houses they require with a lower subsidy than has been paid hitherto, but we recognise that there will be exceptions to the rule. There will be authorities who are only just managing to get along with the existing subsidy, and who may find themselves in serious difficulty if the subsidy is reduced and no other source of finance is made available to them.
That is the purpose of the Clause. It is, to put it briefly—this is the undertaking I gave on the Second Reading, and I repeat it—to ensure that no local authority shall be prevented through financial difficulty from providing the houses which are urgently needed for its people. It is my firm intention that that purpose and undertaking shall be honourably carried out in the administration of this Measure.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough reverted to the condition which governs Clause 5 (1, b)where the word "unreasonable" occurs. The word appears in many Acts of Parliament and is intended to give a fairly wide discretion to the Government of the day to administer it as they think right and fair, always subject to the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. That is how much of our legislation works. It is not drawn up in the most precise, rigid and inflexible way, but the Government of the day administer it as they think fit, subject to all the rights of censure and debate which our parliamentary system provides.
I really believe that in a Clause of this kind, which is intended to deal with all kinds of circumstances foreseeable and unforeseeable, that the only way to ensure that they can all be picked up when they arise is to make the Clause as flexible as possible. That is why, quite deliberately, I put in the word "unreasonable" rather than define too precisely what we mean. To have done so would have meant a whole page of definitions, and, at the end, we should still not have been satisfied that all the cases which ought to be picked up under this Clause would have been included.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that in administering this Clause the Minister would insist on rents and rates being put up before making the additional subsidy which the Clause permits. I do not think that that is a fair assumption. The rents and the rates may already, in the Minister's opinion, be high compared with those charged by comparable local authorities. The Minister may come to the conclusion that any addition to those rates or those rents would be unreasonable, and therefore that the local authority qualified for the additional subsidy under Clause 5 without any further increase in rents or rates.
The purpose of this condition in subsection (1, b)is to make sure that, before this special assistance is given, the Minister shall satisfy himself that it is really needed. This is exceptional assistance to meet exceptional cases, and the purpose of the condition is to make sure that the Minister shall satisfy himself that the circumstances really are exceptional before he authorises the special grant.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raised a number of very detailed points about his city. I do not think that he will want me to go into all of them. Some were a very long way from the subject matter of Clause 5.

Mr, Ellis Smith: Part of it.

Mr. Sandys: A lot of things can be indirectly related to almost anything of this kind in the field of housing and town planning.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the delay in approving the Stoke-on-Trent development plan. As he will know, we are in the first round of these development plans. They all came in more or less simultaneously, and it is, naturally, taking a considerable time to work through them. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who had the same problem, will know that a very great deal of work is involved in studying these plans, going into the objections, holding public inquiries, discussing modifications with the local authority concerned and eventually approving the plan. Short of expanding to an inordinate extent for a short period the staff that deal with those problems and then dismissing them, there is bound to be a queue of these development plans which have to be worked through.
The same difficulty will not arise on the second round, when the plans come to be revised after the five-year period. The revisions will obviously be very much smaller and will not involve these very difficult negotiations and discussions. I can assure the hon. Member that the main problems arising from the Stoke-on-Trent plan have now been resolved. There are still a number of minor modifications to be discussed, but I hope it will not be too long before the plan can be approved.
The hon. Member raised a particular issue with reference to a slum clearance area in his constituency, and also to another area which, he said, was subject to mining subsidence. I hope that he will not expect me to go into the question of mining subsidence today because that really is outside the scope of this Bill. He knows that I have taken considerable personal interest in this problem, that I have visited some of the areas affected, and that the Government are undertaking


a comprehensive review of local government finance, in the course of which the problem of mining subsidence is being examined. At the same time, I have said that if it is not possible to deal comprehensively with the Turner Report we shall look at the more limited problem of some assistance to local authorities. I say that without any commitment. I am merely repeating an earlier statement which I have made on that subject.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Smith: It would not have been fair for me to have raised the wide issue of mining subsidence, and I should like to make clearer what I said before. I was speaking of a slum clearance area, in which there may be houses which may have suffered from mining subsidence but do not necessarily come within the slum clearance. Would the Minister take a generous view of that in order to include all the houses in that slum clearance?

Mr. Sandys: I do not want to get drawn too much into this question. Some of the houses I have seen which have suffered from mining subsidence would certainly, I think, appear to qualify as unfit, but if, on examination, they are not unfit and are easily repairable, then they clearly would not come within that category.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Stoke-on-Trent would get the special grant under Clause 5 in respect of this slum clearance area. The conditions in which Clause 5 grants are payable are clearly defined, and it will depend entirely on whether those conditions are fulfilled. I should have thought it most unlikely that a city like Stoke-on-Trent would be in a position in which it could not build additional houses without having to impose unreasonably high rents or unreasonably high rates. Of course, the houses built to replace houses included in this slum clearance area, even though a proportion of the latter may be fit houses, will all qualify for the full £22 subsidy for slum clearance. The hon. Gentleman also asked about houses subject to demolition orders. Again, I can assure him that houses built to accommodate persons displaced from those houses will qualify for the full £22 subsidy for slum clearance.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) referred to difficult cases which

he thought likely to arise in small rural districts in Montgomeryshire and other parts of Wales, and perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom. He said that these were the poor districts, mainly dependent upon agriculture, with most of the inhabitants not drawing exceptionally high wages and having more or less the same level of earnings—districts with low rateable value, with little industry apart from agriculture, and with high building costs because of the difficulty of transporting labour and materials to the building sites. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if the local authorities were to carry out the further house building programmes which they would like to undertake and which were necessary it would result in the rents and rates being abnormally and unreasonably high. He asked whether I could assure him that such programmes would qualify for the special Clause 5 grant.
With his long experience of Parliamentary proceedings, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, of course, that if a Minister makes a statement it very quickly becomes a commitment, and he will not expect me, without examining each of these cases in detail, to say categorically whether these authorities will or will not qualify for the grant. All 1 would say to him is that the authorities which he has described constitute precisely the kind of case which I had in mind when I introduced this provision for the special grant under Clause 5. It is just the kind of situation which I envisaged might arise, particularly in the small rural areas.
Therefore, while I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a categorical assurance about some of these areas with unpronounceable names, I would say to him that he may be sure I will look at all applications from all quarters, but particularly from areas of that kind, with the utmost sympathy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be sure that there will be no desire on my part to try to restrict the application of the Clause in an ungenerous manner.
The new Clause 5 really replaces Section 7 of the 1946 Act, but I think that when we come to deal with cases such as those mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman he will find that the provisions and conditions of the Clause are more helpful to authorities


such as those he has in mind than the provisions of Section 7 of the 1946 Act. The 1946 Act laid down that to qualify for this special assistance, a local authority had to show that its general rate was, I think, 25 per cent. higher than the average general rate for other local authorities of the same class and that its housing rate, as distinct from the general rate, was 50 per cent. higher than the housing rate of other authorities of the same class.
There is no provision of this kind in the Clause, and it may well be that an authority such as the one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned might not have rates, either the general rate or the housing rate, enormously higher than those of other authorities yet, owing to its circumstances, it might be unreasonable to expect it to have a general rate 25 per cent. higher or a housing rate 50 per cent. higher than others before qualifying for assistance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that, in the main, these provisions give to authorities such as those he mentioned a better prospect of special assistance than they enjoy at present under Section 7 of the 1946 Act.

Mr. Bevan: This Clause has, as I said earlier, been pleaded in aid on several occasions in the course of the proceedings on the Bill. The Minister takes up a position now with which I flatly disagree. To defend his Clause, he has fallen back upon a doctrine which I mentioned in a previous debate, a pernicious doctrine, a really bad one, entirely against the British genius and wholly opposed to the traditions of the House of Commons.
The Minister appears to imagine that that legislation is best which gives most Ministerial freedom of action.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandysindicated dissent.

Mr. Bevan: That is precisely the nature of the reply we have received. The Minister said, in effect, that the Clause was far better than Section 7 of the 1946 Act because it gave him more elbow room; that was his defence. I, on the other hand, hold it to be bad that legislation should be so drawn as to envisage so many exceptions that the Minister has to seek from the House of Commons powers of this sort.
The less these powers are asked and the less Parliament gives them the better the legislation. Indeed, it is because these powers are unusual, however impeccable Ministers may be in their standards of public conduct and in their administration, that wherever they ask for powers of this sort it is almost invariable that there is added to the Clause the proviso that we have here in subsection (2):
In exercising his powers under this section the Minister shall have regard to any conditions which may be laid down by the Treasury."
The Treasury is perfectly content to allow Clauses to go through without that stipulation where its obligations are ascertainable, where it knows beforehand what will be the cost; but wherever a Minister seeks to obtain from the House powers for dishing out public money to certain individuals or authorities, the Treasury says, "If you are going to put your fingers in the till, we are going to see that we are with you at the same time." So the Treasury says, "We will see what conditions you apply here." I do not object to it. All I am saying is that in my opinion—I hope the Minister would agree—it would be much more desirable if we could have legislation which did not rely for its attractiveness upon these wide administrative powers. I should not have thought that any hon. Member, in any part of the Committee, could challenge that doctrine.
It would be desirable, for example, if we could have general housing legislation which would be able to embrace in its principles the circumstances described by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies); but, of course, we know that it is not possible to make the cloth fit every part of the body corporate, and so we have to have some exceptional parts. I repeat, the less we have them, the better the legislation is, precisely because, being purely subjective and there being no objective tests, all kinds of expectations are aroused. If it were possible to calculate, possible to measure or—to use the phrase of the Parliamentary Secretary last evening—to quantify the circumstances, of course we could put them into the legislation. The considerations at this stage are purely subjective. They depend more upon emotional expectations than calculable circumstances and, therefore, all sorts of local authorities try to take shelter under them.
5.0 p.m.
I will give an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Section 7 of the 1946 Act, for which I was responsible. Does he know what was the first deputation I received under that Section? It was from Ebbw Vale. The local authority of Ebbw Vale said, "Now this is fine, our Member is in a position to give us some exceptional assistance," and it sent me a deputation. Of course it did not get any exceptional assistance because Ebbw Vale would not qualify. I mention that as an illustration to show that where you have Ministerial power of this sort at once you get the possibility of lobbying, the possibility of seeking favours and attempting to get governmental power used for certain authorities against others. That is why I lay it down here and now, subject to the intervention of any hon. Member, that it is not a good argument for the Minister's Bill to say, "Ah, but I have taken wider powers of administrative caprice than did my predecessor."
The Minister today is creating circumstances in which he proposes to give some alleviation where the hurt is too great because he is reducing the subsidies. He is reducing the subsidies at a time of mounting housing costs. He says, "It does not matter, I know you will be hurt, but I am preparing some ointment for you. I am adding to the amount of ointment I shall spread over your wounds. I know I shall wound you, but I shall administer a little anodyne.' That is what he is saying in this Clause to local authorities all over the country. When they start squealing and rush up for the anodyne, his right hon. Friend at the Treasury will say," I am going to keep it under lock and key; you cannot be trusted with too much of this."
Here is not a Minister of Housing and Local Government faced with exceptional circumstances over which he has no control, pioneering in new paths, facing unpredictable circumstances, but here is a Minister creating difficulties by his own legislation, producing the very hurts and agonies he is going to try to sooth later. Those are not the circumstances in which I had to face housing in 1945. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman pleads in aid Section 7 of the 1946 Act, I must reply to him that in 1945, as he knows, we faced a situation without precedent.
There had been six and a half years of war in which one-third of the houses of Great Britain had either been damaged or destroyed and there had been no housing of any sort except for houses built near airfields during the war. Full employment then revealed what had been wickedly happening before the war when it was thought that slum clearance could go ahead because general housing needs had been met. In fact the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member at the time, and in which he had a significant place, had estimated a figure which I have used before and use now to show that the right hon. Gentleman cannot argue this in aid this afternoon. I was told (by his Government that they had made an estimate that if 750,000 additional houses were provided the general housing needs of the nation would be met.

Mr. Sandys: Any figures to which the right hon. Member is referring were figures published by the Coalition Government——

Mr. Bevan: Yes.

Mr. Sandys: —not by a purely Conservative Government, but by a Coalition Government. Therefore, he and his party must take equal responsibility for them.

Mr. Bevan: I said, "the Government of which he was a member." That was the Coalition Government. He was at the Ministry of Works. He, with some of his immediate colleagues, were charged with the preparation of post-war housing plans. With the Ministry of Health they were in close collaboration estimating the nature of the post-war housing problem. So they had a special responsibility. I admit at once that there is always collective Cabinet responsibility, but it could hardly be that at that time Earl Attlee was being charged primarily with responsibility for assembling statistics in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works. That really was one of the low-grade debating points which the right hon. Gentleman has produced.
The fact is that at that time they estimated post-war housing needs would be 750,000 houses. That amount was provided by September, 1948, but of course, as we found when we started the National Health Service, the unemployment and poverty of large numbers of people had concealed the real needs. When they


emerged from their statistical darkness into the light of the national platform, we discovered that far more houses were necessary than ever was thought. Therefore, when we reached 750,000 in 1948, instead of the housing lists being less, they were greater because the demand for housing was an expression of full employment, whereas before the war the demand for housing had been an expression of 2 million normally and constantly unemployed.
Those are the figures and the circumstances of the case. Therefore we regretted that we had to postpone further slum clearance until general housing needs had been met. In those circumstances we were calling upon the local authorities in 1945 to resume housing activities in which they had not been engaged for twenty years. In the main they had been providing slum clearance houses, but ever since the end of the Wheatley schemes local authorities had not been in active partnership with the State in the provision of houses for general needs. In the main they were doing slum clearance. They were brought in and their general housing activities had to be re-assembled and re-associated. We had to enter into partnership with them in order to get it done. Because we had had no experience for so long and the circumstances were so novel, that it was not possible to predict every variation and condition, I had to take powers under Section 7 of the 1946 Act.
Nevertheless, the housing legislation was so drafted that those powers were very little exercised. They did not need to be much exercised, and I take pride and pleasure in the fact, not that they were exercised to any great extent, but that they did not need to be exercised much. Otherwise, I should have been exposed to the same argument as I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman. I take no pleasure in the fact that I had to help many, but that the legislation was so sagacious that few needed to be helped.
As soon as the local authorities were able to see their way ahead the number of exceptional cases declined. I have them before me now. In the whole of England only 16 authorities ever got assisted under Section 7 of the 1946 Act, and that ceased in 1948. In other words,

we had assembled circumstances of predictability. The legislation had been framed and administered so that those exceptional powers did not need to be used after 1948. If the right hon. Gentleman is able to say the same after the same lapse of time, he can take more pride and pleasure in his legislation. I have the names of the local authorities which qualified: Bethnal Green, Poplar, Brandon and Byshottles, Conisborough, Featherstone, Felling, Heeton, Jarrow, Norwich, Rothwell, Sandy, Seaham, Worsborough, Easington and Rotherham. There was an extraordinary variation up and down up to 1948. After 1948 there were no more approvals.
In Wales 15 authorities have had their applications approved since the Act and, of these, four were approved last year. That is the general picture, and it shows that when the Minister calls in aid Section 7 of the 1946 Act he is falling back on a precedent made necessary only by his own conduct.
I come to another aspect of the matter. I am sorry I am speaking for so long on this subject, but I regard it as of very great importance, because once we have parted with the Clause we have lost sight of it and it goes back into the offices of Whitehall. From then on the discussions take place between officers of the Minister and the representatives of the local authority, with the Minister coming in now and again. We should like, first, to know a little more about how he intends to carry it out.
I am bound to tell him that when we were framing certain local government financial legislation, such as the rate equalisation scheme, we found it necessary to take many things into consideration. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery spoke about the circumstances of his area, and he knows that in his area the State is the principal ratepayer under the Local Government Act, 1948. Had it not been for that Act, many local authorities in Britain would have been unable to carry on their local government functions after the war.
But we could not rely upon caprice. We had to try, to use the Parliamentary Secretary's phrase, to quantify the circumstances in which money would be attracted under the Act. We could not leave it to whether the Minister awoke that morning with a headache or whether


he was feeling all right; whether he was generous or morose. We had to try to give people some idea what they were entitled to, not fall back on this Byzantian attitude of mind. We had to try to do something in accordance with Western principles of law and not Eastern principles of personal justice.
What did we do? I was reminded of the very great difficulty we had in the between-the-war years of defining what was a necessitous area. I took part in conference after conference. It should have been quite easy to define an area which would be entitled to additional State assistance, but it was not. Was it the number of unemployed? Not by itself, because we found that there were areas where there was considerable unemployment but where the rate burden was comparatively low.
Was it the rate value per head? By itself, no, because, as we saw afterwards, many of the assessment committees in the necessitous areas, because they were necessitous areas, were much more generous than elsewhere in reducing rateable values. In our area, for example, where I frequently sat on an assessment committee, we reduced the rateable value of a colliery in order to keep it in production. In fact, we were conniving in the process of reducing the rateable value per head in order to keep work and in some cases in order to reduce the burden upon local cottages.
We could not take rateable value per head into account alone. In those circumstances, we had to assemble all the facts, if we could. It took many years to do it, during which the local authorities in these areas suffered. Eventually we had to quantify the problem. Eventually we had to objectivise the problem. Eventually we had to try to express it in some kind of mathematical terms which would reduce the Minister's caprice and increase the assistance given to local authorities.
It was done by taking into account the number of children under five years, the extent of roadways, the rateable value per head of the population, the unemployment rate, and so on—all together; and then the block grant was devised. When we came to the Exchequer Equalisation Grant we had again to find a formula.
It is essential that we should have a more precise idea from the Minister how we will interpret Clause 5. Is it to be on

rateable value per head? It could quite easily happen that the rates of a local authority are low, or are not very high compared with the rates elsewhere, because that local authority has been unable to carry out the rest of its local government functions. It often happens that in certain areas where rates are, on the average, low, that the local population are not receiving the benefits of the widest variety of local government services. Although they may not be suffering an excessive rate, they are suffering from deficient local government services.
5.15 p.m.
We found in Wales and on the North-East coast, where the rates in the £ sometimes reached as high as 30s., that the education rate was abnormally and wickedly low, because they could not afford to spend the money on the education of the children. It was only when the Exchequer equalisation grant came into existence that the local authorities were able to exercise their educational powers in that area.
We are very much troubled by what the Minister said yesterday, because he did not make himself clear. Will he demand that the local authority pools all its houses? Does he intend to insist on it? Does he intend to insist that the more expensive houses now being built under decreased subsidies or without subsidies shall be pooled with pre-war houses?
Personally, I say at once that I do not think that local authorities should object to pooling their rents. It is perfectly reasonable that tenants of a local authority living in houses built in pre-war days should have their rents readjusted so as to try to obtain some help for post-war houses, because it is a fact that many of the houses known as Addison houses are superior to some houses built today. It is therefore reasonable in my view that the rents which the local authority tenants pay should be related to the amenities of the houses themselves and not necessarily to the individual cost of construction. I think nobody in the country disagrees with me.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It has been done, but they should be repaired.

Mr. Bevan: I agree that they should be repaired. If the houses were repaired people would think it perfectly just if the rent they paid bore relationship to the


comfort or lack of comfort, amenities or lack of amenities, existing in the house occupied rather than to the mere accident of when the house was built or how much it cost to build it. I absolutely agree with that. When I was at the Ministry of Health I encouraged schemes of that sort all the time.
There was resistance in some cases, because nobody likes to pay more for anything. Nevertheless, I always found that when local authorities went to their tenants and carefully explained the situation beforehand, all was well. I regret that some local authorities have been deficient in this respect; they sometimes act arbitrarily, without telling their people. It is much better, and often they get a much better response, if they take endless pains carefully to explain beforehand what they intend to do and why they are doing it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is democracy.

Mr. Bevan: I will not say the same about differential rents. There is a good deal of passion about this. If a differential rents scheme is not being operated by the local authority, does the Minister consider that the local authority would not qualify for any additional assistance under Clause 5? We should have an answer to that question. If that is what he intends, then he means to take over a very important part of local government administration. Will the right hon. Gentleman be frank with the Committee? Will he tell us that he considers that a differential rent or rebate scheme should be operated before he is called upon to exercise his powers under Clause 5? I will sit down and give him the opportunity of answering if he wishes.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Sandys: I will answer in good time.

Mr. Bevan: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to answer, I am delighted. We should like to know that, otherwise he will be doing under Clause 5, because of his exceptional powers there, what he is not prepared to put in the Bill in other respects. If one local authority finds itself in difficulties and therefore comes to the Minister for help, he ought not to be able to impose differential rents on that authority when another authority not

in the same circumstances did not have differential rents. It would be entirely unfair.
The differential rent scheme should be a matter for the voluntary decision of a local authority and should not in any circumstances be done by the ipse dixitof the Minister merely because the local authority is in the position of having to seek his help under Clause 5. In other words, if local authorities in Montgomeryshire, because of circumstances described by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the Leader of the Liberal Party, have to come to the Minister for additional help, they ought not to lose any of their local government rights.
They would be losing those rights if the Minister said to Newtown, for example, "No, you have no differential rent scheme, and until you have one I am not proposing to help you." That would be putting such local authorities in an inferior position, in lower status as local authorities because they needed to have the help of the Minister in building houses. I hope, therefore, that we shall have from the Minister a frank statement in that regard.
Obviously, because the Clause eases the situation where it might become intolerable, we are not proposing to oppose it. But I regard it as being in itself evidence of a bad Bill and bad legislation that the Minister finds it necessary to take refuge in a Clause which ought to be used only in very exceptional circumstances indeed and ought not to have been brought in by the Minister in order to cover up the wanton damage which he is going to do to housing in this country.

Mr. Arthur Probert: I hesitate to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), but here is a specific point I wish to mention and which I hope the Minister will see fit to answer. In introducing the Bill, the Minister stated that one way of easing the burden of the inevitable consequences of this legislation was for local authorities to pool their rents. When I mentioned Aberdare Urban District Council in our discussion of Clause 2, I gave a series of statistics to show how nonsensical that was in the case of that authority.
I will not delay the Committee now by giving further figures, but I should like to quote the case of Mountain Ash Urban


District Council. That Council built 250 houses before the war and now it is building 233, which will make its total of postwar houses approximately 750. If that Council adopts the rents pool system it means that it has not a pre-war pool to work upon. I take it, therefore, that such an authority would receive the sympathy of the Minister under the provisions of Clause 5.
The rates in Mountain Ash are 31s. in the £1. As a result of the new valuation scheme the valuation is going up by only about 48 per cent. The Minister could help the Committee if he would state as specifically as he can whether such a case would rank for sympathy under the provisions of the Clause.

Mr. Frank Allaun: My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) asked an important question which was not answered. I ask the Minister to answer it now. I would not claim that Salford is in the same position as a small rural area. It is anything but that, but the district contains many terribly overcrowded houses in which it is impossible to expect parents to bring up their children properly. I have in mind the case of a father who has just returned from a tuberculosis hospital to a wife and eight children. They have two bedrooms. Theirs is not a slum clearance house, although it is a poor house. Is the Minister prepared to give special consideration in circumstances like those?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that many additional points have been raised during the further course of the debate since I last spoke, but the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made two main points. First, he criticised the amount of Ministerial discretion provided in the Clause, which he described as pernicious. He has been very free in the use of his adjectives today. He talked a good deal yesterday about my using adjectives.

Mr. Bevan: But mine were much nicer.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know whether they were much nicer. The right hon. Gentleman described the Clause as pernicious and my attitude of mind as Byzantian. I am ready to take all that in the ordinary run of Parliamentary life. I cannot help referring to his own Section 7 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, because

the right hon. Gentleman did so at such length. There is every bit as much Ministerial discretion there as there is in this Clause.
The only difference in the matter of Ministerial discretion is that the right hon. Gentleman prevented himself from giving this assistance until the local authorities could show that their general rate was 25 per cent. more and the housing rate 50 per cent, more, whereas I have given myself this additional discretion purely in order to assist local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: The difficulty is that it was then 1946 and now we are in 1956. We did not create the conditions; the conditions were created for us.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know about that. The right hon. Gentleman was talking about constitutional principle and he said that this provision was pernicious, yet Section 7 of the 1946 Act uses words like
… if the Minister thinks fit so to determine …
and it provides that the Minister shall pay such amounts as the Minister thinks proper. One cannot have more discretion than that, but the right hon. Gentleman went on to sneer slightly at Clause 5 (2) which states that:
In exercising his powers under this section the Minister shall have regard to any conditions which may be laid down by the Treasury.
The right hon. Gentleman said that that meant the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "Not too much of the anodyne." I would refer the right hon. Gentleman also to Section 7 (3) of the 1946 Act, which says exactly the same thing:
In exercising his powers under the preceding provisions of this section the Minister shall have regard to any conditions which may be laid down by the Treasury.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman always hopes that his speech will be heard by those who did not hear the speech of his predecessor. I specifically said that it was because these powers were considered undesirable that they were surrounded with more protection. Of course they are. The Treasury always does this and I said so.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I am only saying that this Clause is not hedged around with any more Treasury restrictions than the


legislation of the right hon. Gentleman, which he himself described as sagacious. I was glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman agreed it was a good thing that subsidies should in general be pooled and that rents should be related to the standard of accommodation and amenity provided, rather than to the accident of the date when the houses were built and to the cost of those houses at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question and asked for a frank answer. I propose to give him a frank answer, because it is a pertinent point and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about it later. The right hon. Gentleman asked, will the Minister insist on the introduction of a differential rent scheme as a condition for the grant of assistance under Clause 5? My answer is that I certainly would not propose to make this an essential condition of the grant of assistance under Clause 5. On the other hand, the existence of a differential rent scheme would obviously be a relevant point which a local authority might make in support of its contention that the building of additional houses would result in unreasonably high rents or rates.
I made it clear in my speech on Second Reading that while I was in favour of differential rent schemes, and, in particular, rent rebate schemes, this type of system was by no means applicable to all kinds of local authorities. There are some local authorities, of the type mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), where the level of earnings is fairly equal throughout the area and where a rent rebate scheme might be useless and inappropriate. There are other authorities where the cost and general bother of such a scheme would not bring in a reasonable return. I say frankly that I would not make it an essential condition, but I would regard the existence of such a scheme in its area as a pertinent and relevant point to which a local authority might properly point in making its case clear that there was no possible way of avoiding having unreasonably high rents or rates if the additional houses they required were to be built.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement which I

want the Committee to consider. The Minister said he was going to be frank, but he has taken away in one part of his sentence what he appeared to be giving at the beginning. That statement, read out in a council chamber in a council housing committee, does what? The council housing committee is asking itself whether it ought to make an application to the Minister under Clause 5. The Minister says he will not insist upon differential rent schemes as a condition for considering the application and the giving of assistance, but he says it would be a pertinent and relevant consideration which a local authority might keep in mind in determining whether the rents were high or low, and whether, therefore, they should qualify for help. Therefore, those in favour of differential rent schemes on the committee might say, "Our application to the Minister is more likely to be successful if we have a differential rent scheme."
As I said in my speech, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman would face it, this puts that local authority in those circumstances in an inferior position to other local authorities which do not have to make application for help, because the other local authorities could continue to provide houses for their general need without any differential rent scheme, and because they would not need help they would not be subject to this subtle leverage which now the Minister is exercising. What he is really saying is that his countenance would be brighter to the application of this local authority if it first had a differential rent scheme.

Mr. C. Davies: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him to look again at these words? I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he will not make it an essential qualification that there shall be a differential rent scheme but, I am afraid, if he looks at the words he will find that he has already stultified himself. He will find that he has not got the option. The words are so certain that we tried to take them out of this Clause last night. The Minister will remember that last night we moved an Amendment to delete the words:
… and other housing accommodation provided by the authority.
We did that in order to give the very discretion which the Minister now says he wants to exercise. The Minister has


now said at the Box, "That is the way I read it. I want to have that discretion," but it looks as if he is depriving himself of his discretion. Will he look at the words again?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct in his interpretation. I think he is referring to subsection (1, b).

Mr. Davies: That is right.

Mr. Sandys: Those words have no reference to differential rents in any sense. They relate to pooling. In other words, what we want to be clear about is that a local authority will not qualify for this additional assistance—and from what he said earlier I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale agrees—if it merely shows that the new houses will have to be let at unreasonably high rents on the assumption that only the new subsidy is devoted to subsidising the rents of those houses. In other words, this condition implies that the local authority will pool all its subsidies and spread them over its houses in a reasonable way. That is why the subsection reads: "… that and other housing accommodation." It means that all the housing accommodation in the area of the local authority must be taken into account, not merely the new houses which will carry now the reduced subsidy and in a short while may carry no subsidy at all. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman that these words do not in any way prejudge the issue about differential rents.

Mr. Bevan: I also will be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I consider it reasonable, if a local authority comes along for help, that it should be able to say that it has managed its estates properly. The local authority is exempted from the Rent Restriction Acts partly for this purpose. Therefore the Minister is right in saying to it, "You come along and say that you cannot build these two- or three-bedroom houses under a rent of £2 a week, but you have four-bedroom houses for which you are charging a pre-war rent of 22s. 6d."
That would be a proper answer, but that is as far as the right hon. Gentleman should go. He should not spoil the picture by what he said earlier and he should be asked to withdraw it. He

should not say that, in addition, the local authority ought to consider the precedence and relevance to high or low rents of the existence of a differential rent scheme because, if a local authority has not done so, it has to do two things with its tenants at the same time before it can send a delegation to Whitehall. It must have a pooled rent scheme and a differential rent scheme before it can send a delegation. The Minister is making things difficult for the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee firmly that as far as he is concerned the existence or non-existence of a differential rent scheme would not be considered by him as a relevant element in the application, and I invite him to say so.

Mr. G. A. Parglter: The right hon. Gentleman says, in effect, that this would be a relevant factor for an authority to put forward in support of its case. Will he equally say that any authority which did not put forward such a factor would not in any way be prejudiced by not doing so?

Mr. Sandys: It obviously would be a relevant factor. I cannot believe that a local authority which was making a case to show that it could not build the additional houses which it required in its area without assistance under Clause 5 would not put forward its differential rent scheme, if it had one, as evidence that it really was doing its utmost to keep down its rents. It is inconceivable to me that it would not do so. I believe it to be a relevant and proper factor for it to put forward.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale presses me to be frank. He has asked me to be frank in saying what our intentions might be in certain circumstances. I have gone to the utmost length to make clear how the Clause will be administered in detail. We shall have to consider detailed cases as they arise.
I felt I had to be absolutely frank and avoid any possibility of misunderstanding in the future. Particularly when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that the Opposition was not proposing to divide against the Clause, I did not want to feel that he could say afterwards that the Clause would never have been passed but for the misunderstanding that had arisen over this point. That is why I have really gone to the utmost limits in


order to make it impossible later on for it to be said that I had misled the Committee.
I do not know exactly how the Clause will be applied in individual cases, but it would be lacking in frankness if I were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation and say that in no circumstances would the existence of a differential rent scheme play any part in the Government's consideration of applications by local authorities for assistance under Clause 5.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. The point is that differential rent schemes are not suitable for some local authorities. That was recognised by the Brooke Committee and has never been disputed by the Government. When local authorities have to consider whether or not to have a differential rent scheme, they ought not to be prejudiced by the possibility that then or later they might have to apply for assistance under Clause 5. What I want the right hon. Gentleman to say, and I hope he will say it, is that, while he would regard it as a relevant circumstance if it were put forward, he would not hold it to the prejudice of a local authority that it had not done something which might be quite unsuitable in its area; in short, that he would not hold against a local authority the absence of a differential rent scheme. That is only fair. Otherwise local authorities cannot govern themselves.

Mr. Sandys: I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that I certainly would not propose to hold against a local authority the fact that it had not got a differential rent scheme if, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the introduction of such a scheme in its area was wholly unsuitable.

Mr. Mitchison: We want to get this clear. The judge of whether it is suitable or unsuitable must be, as the Brooke Committee recognised, the local authority itself. If it is to be decided in Whitehall, that means the end of effective local government in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the judge ought to be the local authority itself?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I really think I have been completely frank in explaining my position in regard to this matter. I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I have already said.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman would have been much franker if he had put into Clause 5 two qualifying conditions, first, that in the opinion of the Minister the rents should be pooled, and, secondly, that there should be a differential rent scheme if he so desired. That would be frankness. He has not been frank. If he looks at his words later, he will see that, in effect, he says, "I will use this in all the circumstances where I think proper as a lever to secure differential rent schemes." Why did he not say so? The answer which he gave my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) just now meant precisely that. He said "I know that there will be circumstances, at which I have hinted, where differential rent schemes are not appropriate, and I accept that, but where I consider that they are appropriate they will help me to reach my decision under Clause 5."Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say that frankly and put it in the Bill? He is really saying, in effect, that the local authorities which apply to him under Clause 5 must accept beforehand that they must be regarded as inferior local authorities.

Mr. Sandys: I really think it is very far from the point to imagine that the Government have in any way introduced Clause 5 in order to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities to establish differential rent schemes. In my opinion, only a very small minority of authorities will find themselves in the position where they will have to apply for assistance under the Clause. My belief is that the great majority of authorities in whose areas differential rent schemes are suitable will be adopting them voluntarily and without any pressure or inducement, such as has been suggested. It is very much beside the point to suggest that this is a back-door way of introducing differential rent schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(SUBSIDIES FOR EXPENSIVE SITES.)

Mrs. Lena Jeger: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, to leave out paragraph (a).
It does not seem to me that the paragraph will be helpful in any way to local authorities. There will probably not be many cases where a local authority will want to build blocks of less than four storeys on sites which cost more than £10,000 per acre, but for the sake of authorities which find themselves in this position, it would be helpful if the paragraph could be deleted.
Perhaps we could be given a little explanation of what is behind the Clause. Can we know, for instance, whether a local authority building on a site costing more than £10,000 per acre will be penalised for undertaking a scheme of mixed development? The provision seems to imply that if a local authority erects a ten-storey block on such a site, it would qualify, whereas if it decided, for social, geographical and planning reasons, to provide the same number of units in the form of an eight-storey block and a row of houses to meet the needs of big families, or a row of bungalows round the feet of the block for old people, the low dwelling form of construction would be penalised.
I hope I am wrong about this, but many of my hon. Friends are in the same confusion about it, and it may be that local authorities will also be misled if that is the intention. If the Parliamentary Secretary can help us at this stage, I am willing to give way. If not, I should like to make clear one or two other circumstances in which the provision might cause difficulties. The paragraph refers to the figure of £10,000 an acre, but that is an unrealistic figure for London. We are building on sites of £30,000 per acre. This Clause might just as well not exist so far as Central London is concerned. Therefore, authorities building on such expensive sites will want to go up as high as they can and qualify for the subsidy.
There may be other officials in the right hon. Gentleman's Department who are more concerned with planning who will go to the local authority and say, "Even though this site has cost you £30,000, you cannot put up a tall block because of the density of the surrounding area or because

of the daylighting factors"—we are always coming up against that factor on small sites in Central London—"and therefore we have to receive help by virtue of this Clause."
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman wants to say that local authorities building on small expensive sites should not be there at all. However, it may well be, particularly with the degree of congestion in Central London, that we have literally to chase round the houses looking for very small plots which are expensive and on which we cannot go up high because of the daylighting and density factors in the area. It will be unfair for the planning side of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to tell us that we cannot go up high, and for the accountants to say that because we have not gone up above four storeys we are not entitled to the expensive sites subsidy.
Quite frankly, we are in such a desperate position in Central London that we must look to every odd corner and for every plot, however small, on which we can put up even half a dozen flats or even a handful of maisonettes here and there, because every single unit helps some desperate family. I think that we have used up so many of our sites in London that the big projects will not be so easy for local authorities to undertake.
The present Clause seems to be a direct disincentive to the use of the small site with a small development on it. I should have thought that this was a matter which we could have left to the discretion of the local authorities. No one wants to put up fewer flats than possible on a site, not only because of the human need which activates us all, but because of consideration of the rent and rate income. It would be only in circumstances of planning restrictions that we would want to do this. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to delete this paragraph.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman has enough powers in his loan sanction approval to regulate expenditure on sites without having written into the Bill the figure of £10,000. We do not know what is to happen to land values. They may get even higher, and I cannot see that it is helpful in any way to have this arbitrary figure written into the Bill when the Minister has powers, through the other machinery in his Department, to control the expenditure on sites of local


authorities. It would seem, therefore, to be in the interest of everyone and to make for greater clarity in this Bill if the right hon. Gentleman would see if he could meet us on this Amendment and drop paragraph (a).

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Enoch Powell): I think that I can lay to rest the apprehensions of the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger). She asked me—and it is convenient to take the specific examples she gave—whether, if a site is acquired at more than £10,000 per acre on which it is proposed to build only one high block of eight storeys, it would qualify for the higher rate subsidy under Clause 6. The answer is "Yes."
What this Clause means is that in order to qualify for the subsidy on a site costing more than £10,000 per acre development must include one building, but need not include more, of four storeys. That is really the only qualification which this Clause imports. The site need only comprise of all the buildings placed on it one of four storeys in order for all the buildings on the site to be covered by the Clause.
There is in fact very little difference between this provision and the one in the existing law. Under the existing law laid down in the 1949 Act, it is necessary for there to be at least one building of three storeys on such a site. This Clause makes the slight change that that requirement applies to four storeys. I suggest to the Committee that it is unrealistic to think that on very expensive building sites costing above £10,000 per acre the development would be such that no building of even four storeys was likely to be erected.
We all desire to bring about variegated development of these sites, and there has been immense improvement in recent years in such planning. We all know that the tendency in pre-war years to have monotonous blocks of four, five and six-storey flats side by side has been succeeded by much more diversified development, with houses and maisonettes and very high flats. It is intended by this Clause to give the utmost discretion that can possibly be desired to a local authority to plan the site.
The hon. Lady said, "Suppose you have just one site on which it is desired to build just one house." I suggest to her that it is unrealistic to suppose that a local authority would wish to acquire a single dwelling site at very high cost and erect on that site one dwelling of less than four storeys. I would agree that in that case it is excluded. I ask the Committee, however, to recognise that it is reasonable when developing a site of very high value that the local authority while going in for diversification and experimenting with different types of diversification should not act extravagantly, and should provide some development at a reasonable height.

Mrs. Jeger: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his assurance. On the second point which I raised, I feel that I may not have made myself quite clear. I do not mean the obvious case of infilling. For instance, in central London there are still bombed sites which should be filled and which, for town planning reasons, are filled up to existing roof level by perhaps three or four houses. There is an instance in Great Ormond Street of land costing more than £10,000 an acre. Of course, we cannot put up ten storey blocks because it is a question of the small job of infilling. Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that that sort of work which would help a few families is excluded from this assistance and is being discouraged by the Minister?

Mr. Powell: I am not acquainted with the actual site. The position at present is that in order to qualify it is necessary for such a building to have three storeys, and that as the Bill is drawn it would be necessary that it should have four storeys. There is that difference between the law as it stands and as it will be under this Clause, but there is only that difference. I should imagine that in most cases of infilling, the existing roof levels to which the hon. Lady referred will be of the four-storey level.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: There is another difference, and that is that the existing legislation was not passed at a time when the Government were cutting the general housing subsidies. The trouble in this case is, taking local authority finances as a whole, that the authorities will not have a penny to spare, but on the contrary will be very hard put to it indeed to go on with their general housing programmes. I


quite accept what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the first point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger). Indeed, I think that it is clear in the Bill.
However, I do not for a moment accept the answer which he made on the second point. In effect what he said was that there will be very few cases in which local authorities will be building under four storeys on such valuable land.

Mr. Powell: I said that there would be very few cases where, on such valuable land, the local authority would be engaging in development which did not comprise at least one building of four storeys.

Mr. Mitchison: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. That is exactly what he said, but I invite him to go into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South—and not only there, but into the centres of any large towns in this country—and get any land at all at less than £10,000 an acre.
What he is doing is, from Whitehall—from Parliament if he likes—obliging local authorities in no circumstances to have areas containing single houses or houses with a couple of flats under the penalty of losing its subsidy in those areas.

Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is under a misapprehension. This provision obliges them to have no expensive sites on which development consists exclusively of houses of one and two and three storeys.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has repeated with great lucidity what he already said and there is no need for him to repeat it a second time. He is obliging local authorities in those circumstances not to build low flat dwellings in one of those areas, but, under a pretty severe financial penalty, to build the kind of houses and flats that he and the Tory Party think that they ought to build on this particular type of site. What sense is there in that? I agree with him that there will not be very many cases, but that is all the more reason not to have an unnecessary stopper in the Clause. That and that only is what he is doing. To give another instance; a very distinguished Leicester councillor, Councillor

Haig, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden), whose utterances in this House are restricted to occasional formal remarks—he is the Opposition Chief Whip—and said that this provision will make things exceedingly difficult in Leicester. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary knows that in Wolverhampton and other large provincial towns the use of flats has not become nearly as extensive as in London. In some parts of England there still persists very strong objection to them.
That is the sort of matter which a local authority ought to be left to decide for itself. The penalty is pretty severe. With land at £20,000 an acre—that is not an unreasonable figure for land in the middle of a big city—the local authority will get no expensive site subsidy at all for the second £10,000 and for the first £10,000 will get £530 a year. That is to say, that up to £10,000, even at the present monstrously high rates of interest, the authority will be getting the annual interest on that amount for 60 years. That is not so bad.
However, the moment one gets beyond that, the difference is very sharp, and the financial penalty of going beyond £10,000 is very heavy. I repeat that I agree with the hon. Member that there will not be very large numbers of these cases. In fact, the cost of the concession for which we are asking would not be very large. What the provision means is that the Minister is telling local authorities, who are surely the right people to judge matters of this sort, what kind of development they will have in their own areas.
Not all local authorities will be affected, probably not rural or most urban councils, but the big towns will be affected, and the city councils ought to settle it for themselves and not be obliged by financial considerations to adopt something that may not fit in with their requirements, and perhaps with their prejudices, in the matter in the way which it is sought to do now.
I cannot help feeling that here is the stern hand of the Treasury, which sometimes gets hold of these financial Clauses and whittles off a few pounds here and there, and that this provision is put into a financial Clause without enough consideration for the independence of local authorities. The Bill already goes far


too far in that direction, and I beg the hon. Gentleman either to say that he will reconsider the matter—not to give an answer now, but on Report stage, if he wishes—or, failing that, to take it from me that we regard it as such a serious matter from the point of view of the right of local authorities to do their work in

their own way and from the point of view of the needs and prejudices in some cases of the larger towns that we propose to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 172.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[6.5 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Green, A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Aitken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grimond, J.
Maddan, Martin


Ashton, H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Atkins, H. E.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gurden, Harold
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marples, A. E.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maoclesfd)
Marshall, Douglas


Barlow, sir John
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Barter, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, R. L.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Heath, Edward
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hlcks-Beaoh, Maj. W. W.
Nabarro, C. D. N.


Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Neave, Airey


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bishop, F. P.
Hlnchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th. E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Black, C. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Body, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holt, A. F.
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hope, Lord John
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Horobin, Sir Ian
Osborne, C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Howard, John (Test)
Page, R. G.


Bryan, P.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Huibert, Sir Norman
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh. W.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Pott, H. P.


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Peter


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Erle (Blackley)
Redmayne, M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cunningham, Knox
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Dance, J. C. G.
Keegan, D.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


D'Avigdor-Goldamid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roper, Sir Harold


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, J. A.
Russell, R. S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kirk, P. M.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lagden, C. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. C.
Sharples, R. C.


Duthle, W. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Leather, E. H. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Errlngton, Sir Erle
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Speir, R. M.


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Fisher, Nigel
Llnstead, Sir H. N.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fort, R.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Storey, S.


Foster, John
Longden, Gilbert
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Freeth, D. K.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chlswlck)
Studholme, H. C.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, C. S. (Aylesbury)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Teeling, W.


Glover, D.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Gomme-Dunean, Col. A.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Cough, C. F. H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Cower, H. R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Turner, H. F. L.




Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vickers, Miss J. H.
Watkinson, H. A.
Woollam, John Victor


Vosper, D. F.
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wall, Major Patrick
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Godber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hannan, W.
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hastings, S.
Paton, J.


Anderson, Frank
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hobson, C. R.
Probert, A. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horace
Reeves, J.


Beswick, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Royle, C.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jeger, George (Gooie)
Snow, J. W.


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pnes, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Sparks, J. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Steele, T.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Callaghan, L. J,
Kenyon, C.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Chapman, W. D.
Lawson, G. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Ledger, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwlck)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh &amp; Flnsbury)
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Thornton, E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Timmons, J.


Cronin, J. D.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Daines, P.
McLeavy, Frank
Warbey, W. N.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Weitzman, D.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mahon, S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Deer, G.
Mellish, R. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mltohison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Dodds, N. N.
Monslow. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fernyhough, E.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fletcher, Eric
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gibson, C. W.
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Owen, W. J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Grey, C. F.
Padley, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. J. T. Price.


Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(SUBSIDIES FOR PRIVATELY PROVIDED AGRICULTURAL DWELLINGS.)

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Victor Collins: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out from "there" to the end of line 32 and to add:
was substituted the word 'nil'.

I promise to take only a minute or two in moving this Amendment. I shall state the case and refrain from developing it.
As the Bill stands at present, the Minister proposes to reduce by £5 per annum the subsidy payable on new privately owned cottages for farm workers. Such cottages in almost all circumstances become tied cottages—service cottages—giving the farm worker


no security of tenure, and rendering him and his family liable to eviction if he changes his employment. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not oppose a reduction in the subsidy on such cottages. In fact, it is perhaps the only subsidy reduction in the Bill of which we fully approve. But we are opposed altogether to the creation of tied cottages for farm workers and especially the building of cottages for farm workers being assisted substantially by public money.
The tied cottage is a major cause of dissatisfaction among farm workers and, among others, a prime reason for the continued drift from the land which we all deplore. The purpose of this Amendment is, by reducing the subsidy to nothing, to ensure that no more taxpayers' money is spent on perpetuating and extending a system so generally hated by farm workers.
During our discussions on Clause 1 an Amendment was moved from this side of the Committee—unfortunately it was not accepted by the Minister—to increase the subsidy on houses for farm workers built by local authorities, or rather to ensure that the present subsidy was not reduced. That, of course, is Labour Party policy in respect of the provision of such houses. We wish to provide cottages for farm workers in order to assist agriculture and provide security of tenure, and, if farm workers have to leave such cottages, to throw on to local authorities the onus of providing them with alternative accommodation. It is therefore extremely regrettable that the Minister did not accept that earlier Amendment.
We pointed out at the time that the present proposals meant that the rent of a three-bedroom cottage in the country would increase by £1 0s. 7d., to a total of 47s. 9d.—which is more than one-third of the farm worker's minimum wage. That is a quite impossible circumstance. We argued that without a substantial subsidy local authorities would not be able to build farm workers' cottages. Nevertheless, the Minister refused to budge.
Now, however, we find that he is willing to continue a subsidy of £10 per annum in respect of privately-owned farm workers' cottages, thereby perpetuating the system which is so detested by

farm workers He is spending in this way public money which he has denied to local authorities in order that they can build farm workers' cottages, and, indeed, other local authority houses. It is for that reason that we have moved the Amendment. We hope that the Minister will accept it, save that amount of public money and hand it over to the local authorities to enable them, with increased subsidies, to build farm workers' cottages in respect of which security of tenure can be given.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I find myself in a slight difficulty here, because I wish to address my remarks to the general proposal in the Clause, whereas the Amendment introduces what I regard as either an enormous red herring or sacred cow, which is now and has long been deceased. I start with the general question of the building of private farm cottages under the subsidy. The Committee will forgive me if I mention the terms upon which such building is carried out.
First, the local authority has to decide, upon the application of the proposing builder, that the house in question would be more conveniently built by a private owner than by the local authority itself. It then has to decide that the proposed house is satisfactory in size and construction, and then, if it permits the building, it makes it a condition that the rent chargeable, if any, shall be limited to a rent which would be applicable to the same type of house if the local authority had built it. After the house is built the subsidy is payable annually, provided that a satisfactory standard of maintenance has been carried out and also that it has been reserved for an agricultural worker. I speak subject to correction, but I believe there is also a provision that an agricultural worker has to be given four weeks' notice before his occupancy can end.
No farmer or country landowner builds a cottage except for a very good reason. He has plenty of other uses for his capital, such as the building of dairies and granaries and all the other fixed equipment which is very much needed. By itself, the cottage adds nothing like its cost to the value of the farm. Private cottages are built for one of two purposes. It may be that they are to replace existing cottages which are unfit and not worth


reconditioning. That is tantamount to slum clearance which, if it were carried out by a local authority, would be grant-aided to the extent of £22 for 60 years under the new proposals.
The second reason for building private cottages is to attract skilled key men as foremen or stockmen, in order that full use may be made of a new dairy or an expanded plan of production or whatever it may be. That is tantamount to building for the urgent needs of industry. There again, if that were done by a local authority it would attract a subsidy of £24 for 60 years.
In each case that act by a private owner relieves a local authority of some pressure upon its housing list, and a house is built in the district for a small subsidy commitment. The National Farmers' Union and other bodies—and farmers generally—were naturally concerned by the effect of this proposed cut of one-third upon the future trend of private farm cottage building, especially as the cost of building such cottages is between three and four times the pre-war cost.
It would be possible to make out a very strong case, on costs, for putting up the subsidy, but for the somewhat curious and—certainly to me—surprising fact that comparatively little use has been made of the available facilities. In 1951, for example, 307 approvals for subsidy were given; the total of private enterprise houses built in rural districts in that year was 7,612, and only one in twenty-five private enterprise houses attracted subsidy. In 1953, the number of approvals rose to 395, and the total number of private enterprise houses built was 28,563, which is a proportion of one in seventy-one. In 1954, the figures rose to 557 approvals out of 32,550 private enterprise houses—an improvement to a proportion of one in fifteen.
It is not possible to find out how many of those private enterprise houses were actually built on farms for agricultural or forestry workers. The figures can probably be traced through the capital expenditure claims, but I would hazard a modest guess that they were at least ten times greater than the numbers built with the aid of the subsidy. The reason for that is probably that the bigger farms—which tend to be the only farms able to find the cash to pay the builders to put up these cottages—receive favourable

terms in relation to capital expenditure advances, tax relief and investment allowances and, on the whole, such farmers have probably thought it not worth while to go to the trouble of attracting local authority approval.
Another possible reason is that, during the term of office of the Labour Government, the tied cottage provision was prohibited. It was laid down that any such cottage had to be occupied by an owner-occupier or a tenant, which ruled out the service occupant—the farm worker whose house goes with the job.
6.30 p.m.
Perhaps this will be a convenient moment to discuss briefly the tied cottage agitation and its effects, now that the matter has been raised. I believe that this agitation is a mistake. I do not know what the situation may have been fifty years ago but, in my experience since the war, the tied-cottage agitation has worked to the discomfort of the farm worker. It has been contended that the wicked farmer turns out the good man. I do not say that it is not possible to find a case of unsympathetic eviction but, broadly speaking, the fact is that most farm workers are harmed by anything which militates against the building or reconditioning of a tied cottage. It means that those cottages simply are not built or reconditioned.
The policy of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in administering the Rural Housing (Improvement) Acts, after the recommendations that were made by the Hobhouse Committee, caused consternation in the country districts in which I lived and worked as a member of a housing committee. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee with detail, except to say that if the farmer wanted to improve the conditions of men working on the farm, even of the most loyal and the longest-serving people, he got no help.
I remember this very well because when I finished my service after the war, the only house I could live in happened to be an empty tied cottage. Opposite it were two small cottages. Plans had been made for their reconditioning, but absolute prohibition came along from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale when he failed to continue the Acts to which I have referred, and which expired in 1946. Those cottages are now falling


down. They have been known locally as "Bevan's memorial." I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman in such good form today. I think he will outlive his own memorial; but there it stands.
The tied cottage provides mobility for the agricultural worker. If he is a skilled cowman, pigman or foreman and wants to rise in his profession, he must be able to move to another job. It is the fact that a good house, or what one hopes is a good house, goes with the job which enables the rising man to move the whole way round England and to work his way up in the profession. That is of very great advantage to the agricultural worker, who is in that way free to sack the boss. He can come and go and pick his jobs, leaving his tied cottage and sending a Christmas card back.

Mr. James MacColl: Do not the figures indicate that men are going out of the agricultural industry?

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) aware that the farm workers' union dislikes tied cottages so much that for many years it has campaigned against them? If what he says is right it would not have done so.

Mr. Hill: I am only giving my experience.
I agree that that is what is said about tied cottages, but I think it is one of the items of policy which have grown up in the past and have been clung to until they have become sacred doctrines and are not critically examined. My experience is that farm workers, on the whole, do not mind very much where they live. The things with which they are concerned are a good house and a reasonable rent. Sometimes the one consideration comes first and sometimes the other. Who owns the cottage is generally a very long way down on the farm worker's list. I do not want to get drawn into this controversy, because I believe it is obsolete.
I would like to come back to the question of the small number of approvals under the subsidy. The big farm does not bother about it much. I am concerned about the comparatively small number of farms which have availed themselves of the benefits. To a small farmer with not much money and in a remote area, £15 a year may be very important. I am anxious to avoid the position

in which the decision between building anew or reconditioning depends on grants. Let me explain what I mean.
If one has a bad cottage which needs improvement, one can get a reconditioning grant. One can spend up to £800, of which £400 will be a grant. That will be plus the cost of doing any necessary repairs, the improvement grant not covering repairs and maintenance. It is quite easy to get to a stage in expenditure when it might be much better to make a clean sweep and build a new cottage. So far as I remember, the reconditioning grant insists upon a life as short as fifteen years, although that may have been extended. The house may be obviously good for sixty years or more.
This kind of decision is taken easily by big farmers. When they have to spend £400 or £500 in that way they may say "Scrap it" and build a new cottage. For the smaller farmer whose capital is small, the cut in subsidy may just tip the balance against building a new cottage. It means in the long run a waste of time, labour and material. I regret that there is no provision in the Bill to deal with any future period in which the supply of needed private cottages falls off.
I should like to see the Minister have power, where there is a need for cottages to be privately built in remote areas—which building the local authority would probably back very strongly because it would otherwise have to build in remote areas itself—to increase the subsidies, as he can for rural districts. If he cannot find it possible to seek that discretion, I hope he will assure the Committee that the position will be carefully watched so that we do not get into the position in which there is a lack of suitable agricultural houses.

Mr. Herbert Butler: I am trying to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). Am I to understand that he is in favour of the Bill, which reduces the subsidy on houses that belong to central or local government, but is in favour of subsidies being granted to private owners for houses which they themselves put up?

Mr. Hill: I support the Bill because, in general, the housing subsidies, both for local authority and private enterprise farm cottages, are being reduced. All


I say is that the economics of private enterprise housing were at a very low level to begin with. That is all. Had there not been a general need to reduce subsidies, one could have made a case for increasing the subsidy available for private enterprise purely on grounds of cost and on the number of approvals.
As I say, I do not think that that is now a point of substance, because the big farmers are building the houses without a subsidy. I am rather concerned about the small farms in some remote districts. I want that point watched, because I believe that it is vital to provide decent housing for the farm workers, whoever they are, whether they live in remote places or comparatively close to the towns and, above all, whether they happen to be housed on or by the farm.

Mr. Mitchison: I have listened carefully to what has been said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), but the one thing I did not gather was whether or not he was in favour of the Clause.

Mr. Hill: I am against the Amendment and in favour of the Clause, in the hope that an assurance will be given that the position will be watched.

Mr. Powell: I have no intention of carrying further this little debate on the well-worn topic of tied cottages—it arises only indirectly on the Amendment and even on the Clause which is before the Committee—though I must confess that I was a little surprised to hear the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) count the tied cottage as one of the causes of the drift from the land.
The financial position of privately and publicly-provided houses for agricultural workers under the Bill is as follows. In respect of the privately-provided cottage which fulfils the conditions in the Acts of 1938, 1946 and 1952—which are all involved—the subsidy payable is a maximum—and I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is a maximum—of £10 per annum over forty years.
In the case of a house provided by the local authority it is £10 plus—in a case which qualifies, which will often be the same class of case as that where the privately-owned house attracts the subsidy—the supplement of £9 under Clause 4. That is to run for sixty years and is

subject, of course, to any rate contribution which the local authority might make towards meeting a deficiency. I therefore do not think that it can be said that the adjustment in the rate of subsidy to the privately-provided house is out of general keeping with the alteration in subsidies to council houses under the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) drew attention to the very important matter of the relationship between inducements to build new houses and inducements to recondition old ones. I am sure that he there touched on a very important point. We must be sure that the inducements which are given under the two heads are not such as to encourage uneconomic behaviour, to encourage reconditioning where new building would be more truly economic, and vice versa.I give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks, that that all-important relationship will be watched.
In the meantime, I would ask the Committee not to destroy this modest agency of providing agricultural houses for a very special category of agricultural employee of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend—the cowman, the pigman and the foreman. It is true that, as he said, the proportion of houses built by private enterprise in rural districts which enjoy a subsidy for agricultural workers under these provisions is comparatively small. Nevertheless, at the present time the trend is a rising one.
My hon. Friend gave the figures for approvals, and the Committee might be interested to know the number of houses completed with this subsidy in recent years. In 1952 there were 288; in 1953. 346; in 1954, 400, and in 1955, some 600. The provision of houses by private enterprise with the aid of this subsidy is, therefore, making a modest but useful contribution, and I would ask the Committee not to bring that small but useful contribution to an end by agreeing to this Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I shall be very brief, but I wish to touch upon the subject of inducements mentioned by both the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). For the farmer, there is


more than the inducement of the subsidy. There is the fact that the farmer who builds a house which is a tied cottage for his worker can write off the cost at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum against his profits. That is an enormous inducement.
I know of no other employer who is in a position to write off against his profits such a percentage on a building. Is that not enough? Do we, in addition, have to give a subsidy to a man who is all the time appreciating his capital at the expense of the Exchequer? Under such conditions, I should have thought that the farmer who was building for a worker on the basis of the tied cottage should be satisfied with such an inducement as that.

Mr. Hill: With great respect, I was dealing with the small farmer. A great many farmers do not have that degree of Income Tax liability, although their farms may desperately need a new cottage. Another point is that although there may be a relief and a subsidy, someone must pay the builder quickly.

Sir L. Plummer: I only ask how it is possible for a man to build a house if he has not the capital. He has to build to get the subsidy, and he needs money for that. The subsidy is not capital but revenue. This provision does not help the small farmer. It is the large farmer who is building the houses on the estate and getting the workmen. He is quite able to take care of himself with the 10 per cent. annual depreciation, and he does not need this subsidy.

Mr. Mitchison: If it is intended that we should conclude the Bill today I earnestly hope that we shall be able to leave the question of tied cottages alone. I totally disagree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). As for his "Bevan's monument" as he called it, if he knows anything about the law he should take away that name and rechristen it a monument to ignorance. He could perfectly well have got some help, and I will tell him how if he will see me afterwards—if it has not gone too far.
We are not at all happy about these subsidies, but we agree that they are a small question, and that, at any rate, they

are being reduced. We say—and so does the hon. Member for Norfolk, South—I do not disagree with him on this—that it is all to the good that they are being reduced, and that is as far as we are going today on this matter.

Mr. Collins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: When the Clause is being considered again, would it not be advisable to insert a reference to the Housing Act, 1952? Tied cottages were actually excluded by Section 13 of the 1946 Act. That was our legislation. They were put back in 1952, subject to certain safeguards, and I think that the 1952 Act is just as much an amendment as was the 1946 Act. The Clause is a little misleading as it is worded.

Mr. Powell: The 1952 Act is not mentioned because it did not alter the rate of subsidy. It is only the provisions which fix the rate of subsidy which are specifically alluded to. I have noted the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I think it was done in this way for that reason.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(TERMINATION OF DUTY TO MAKE RATE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Mr. D. Jones: I beg to move, in page 6, line 45, at the end, to insert:
but may in any financial year carry to the credit of the housing revenue account, in addition to the amounts required by section one hundred and twenty-nine of the principal Act, such further amounts, if any, as they may think fit.
The introduction of the Bill caused a good deal of consternation amongst local authorities, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows by the very cold reception which his announcement received at Harrogate. The fact that the Bill caused consternation is borne out by the communications which have passed between the Association of Municipal Corporations and the right hon. Gentleman's Department. They culminated in a letter on 31st January in which the Association made it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill caused a good deal of concern.
Whatever the other Clauses have caused to the local authorities—and they have caused a good deal of concern—Clause 8 and its implications have caused the financial officers of the local authorities great consternation. The Amendment seeks to do something to mitigate that consternation. Clause 8 terminates the obligation of local authorities, under a number of provisions in the Housing Acts, to make rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account. These provisions impose obligations but do not confer powers. In these circumstances, although in the future the local authority will be obliged to make good at the end of any financial year any deficiency which is shown on the housing revenue account, it will have no other power to pay money from the general rate fund into that account.
This applies not only to future houses but also to existing houses, and the fact that local authorities have since the war been contributing the equivalent of one-quarter of the total subsidies on post-war houses suggests that even if an economic rent is charged wherever possible and differential rents schemes are introduced, assistance will often be needed from the general rate fund.
Moreover—and this is an important point in the present period of full employment and relatively high wages—the pressure on the housing revenue account is less now than it is likely to be if for any reason an economic depression, coupled with unemployment, should occur; and I think I might add "part-time employment," which is already rearing its head in many parts of the country.
If the sole circumstance in which a local authority can contribute to the housing revenue account is limited to meeting a deficiency shown on the account at the end of the year, two consequences will follow. First, except in specially prosperous areas, there will never be a surplus on the housing revenue account to help to provide for more difficult times. Secondly, it will mean that the local authority's payment will be a restrospective one for which the local authority will not ordinarily have been able to provide in its estimate for the year in which the deficiency arises. Payments will be made in arrear, which is always bad finance.
For all those reasons, the local authority should be able to make contributions to the account as a discretionary power and

not as a duty and in this way to maintain a reasonable working balance on its housing revenue account. Further, it is desirable to provide, which the Bill in its present form does not, a fund to cushion the local authority rates from the impact of economic fluctuations. The lowering of the Exchequer contributions, combined with the removal of the local authorities' obligation to contribute, will, particularly if the power to contribute from the general rate fund as proposed by this Amendment is not conceded, inevitably lead in the long or the short run to the disappearance of any balances on the housing revenue account, and local authorities will have no reserves whatever against any hard times which may come along.
If the Government's new policy in relation to subsidies is to be effective, it demands for local authorities the greatest measure of freedom in their financial arrangements. That seems to be fundamental. The ability of tenants to pay a full rent or a high proportion of it is closely dependent on the maintenance of full employment. There will always be a proportion of tenants, for example the low wage-earners and those in receipt of National Assistance and pensions, who will need help. If this group were to increase suddenly—and it might very well do so, if even temporary unemployment struck the district—then the housing revenue account would quickly become depleted and, indeed, might be reduced to nil. The authority might get into grave difficulty and might be faced with a sudden demand for an extortionate contribution from its rate fund to the housing revenue account in order to make it solvent.
For those reasons, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman might review the position in connection with local authorities financing the housing revenue account. It seems to me, and I think to the majority of the local authority associations, that if they are to try to even out the contribution which will be required from the rate fund, and if they are to be encouraged to do what the Bill suggests they should do and make contributions at their discretion in the form of subsidy, then there ought to be power and permission to carry a reserve in the housing revenue account. In order to safeguard against fluctuations which might occur, and which indeed, I regret to say, are occurring in many parts of the


country at present, and in order to even out over a period of years the contribution from the rate fund to the housing revenue account, this Amendment ought to be conceded.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to accept this Amendment, because it will be one way of alleviating some of the anxiety which is felt by local authorities about finding funds for their housing programme. I understand that at the moment they receive a pretty certain income for their housing fund by way of payment from the general rate fund. They have been able to build up a surplus and they can budget ahead for their annual requirements with some degree of certainty and local planning.
I have received views from my local authority that if it is debarred from making payments from the rate fund it will be hard put to it to find a reserve of money to enable it to carry on as it has been carrying on in the past.
Local authorities are somewhat puzzled because, apparently, under the Bill the Minister can claim the whole of the surplus, if there is a surplus in the fund, at the end of each quinquennial year, quite irrespective of the fact that some of that surplus might well have been contributed by the local authority through its contributions to the subsidy. If that is so, then in the case of King's Lynn, in which I am particularly concerned, it could be to their detriment to the extent of some thousands of pounds.
7.0 p.m.
If my right hon. Friend would accept the Amendment it would enable reserves to be built up and, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) said, those reserves could be used against the coming of a rainy day. That would give some scope to the local authority to be prepared for eventualities such as irrecoverable rents—not that I am suggesting that the people of King's Lynn are likely to default in their rents, but the town has built a lot of new council houses since the war and now hopes to get on to its programme of rehousing people at present living in slum areas. It is a fact that in the slum portions people find it difficult enough to pay the extremely modest rents

they are asked to pay today and it would be a great deal more difficult for the council to ask a higher rent from them when eventually they are rehoused. If the council had a reserve fund to meet that deficiency it would be very helpful to its finance department.
There are many contingencies which have to be met from time to time. The hon. Member mentioned unemployment and part-time employment. I do not anticipate those problems returning to us, especially under a Conservative Government, but I think the whole principle of a reserve fund available for local authorities to administer in the way they think suitable is right. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this matter and to see if he can accept the Amendment.

Mr. Sandys: It might save the time of the Committee if I say straight away that I think this a desirable Amendment. I am quite prepared to accept it.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is proposing not only to accept the Amendment but also to cover the problem which arises when the obligation to contribute is terminated? What is to happen to the surplus, if there is a surplus, at the end of a future quinquennial?

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order, Mr. MacPherson. Is that a question which arises on this Amendment, or—as I thought—on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," when I propose to raise it myself?

The Temporary Chairman: It does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Lindsay: I am much obliged, I wanted to make sure that it was covered. I understood that the provisions which would be made by our new Clause would be out of order as being beyond the Money Resolution, and could not be dealt with at that stage.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: It is quite unnecessary for me now to deliver the excellent speech I had prepared in favour of the Amendment, but I should like to congratulate the Minister on at last accepting an Amendment to the Bill. I hope that is some promise for future Amendments which are to be moved from this side of the Committee.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The acceptance of the Amendment will be an incentive towards good management, and a municipality should benefit financially from good management. Therefore, I am very pleased that it has been accepted and will reserve the observations I want to make on other aspects of the matter until we reach the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, at the end to add:
(3) For the purposes of the application of this Act to London—

(a) the reference in subsection (1) of this section to the general rate fund shall be construed, in relation to the London County Council, as a reference to the county fund;
(b) subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any arrangements made between the London County Council and the council of a metropolitan borough or the Common Council of the City of London under subsection (1) of section one hundred and eighty-one of the principal Act; and
(c) so much of any contribution paid by the London County Council into the Housing Revenue Account under paragraph 8 of the Eighth Schedule to the principal Act as may fairly be regarded as attributable to the cessation under subsection (1) of this section of any contributions mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 3 of that Schedule shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by that council for special county purposes.

This is purely a London matter. There were other Amendments on the Order Paper previously, and I believe that in this respect an agreement has been reached between the right hon. Gentleman and the L.C.C. I move this Amendment in the confident hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Sandys: I hope to carry on with the good work, and I am glad to tell the Committee that I am happy to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This provides us with an opportunity of asking questions on behalf of our municipality.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. We have not yet come to the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and this is purely a London matter. Stoke has not yet annexed London, has it, although it is making some progress?

The Temporary Chairman: It is in fact entirely a London matter, and if the hon.

Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) wishes to deal with matters other than London he would be well advised to wait until we reach the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ellis Smith: I accept your correction, Mr. MacPherson. I made a slip, but there was no need for sarcasm from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Mr. Mitchison: With your leave, Mr. MacPherson, may I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) that I had no intention whatever of being sarcastic at his expense.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The City Council of Stoke-on-Trent, has given consideration to this Clause and asked that we should make some observations in order to get an understanding of its application. It has now been improved as a result of the acceptance of the Amendment proposed in page 6, line 45. That is a big step forward.
I have before me the housing accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1955, in which almost £1 million is involved. Here are a few examples of the seriousness of housing finance: Exchequer subsidy, £315,984, rate fund contribution £112,833, loan charges £742,226. We find in regard to loan charges that on a house costing £1,750 they have gone up from £1 4s. 3d. in 1951 to £1 15s. 6d.
It is the intention of most housing committees—I can at least speak for the one with which I am familiar—to conduct their finances on as businesslike a basis as possible. Now that the Minister has accepted the Amendment to which I referred, there will be further incentives to that end. If reserve funds are built up they can be financed in two ways, firstly, by the use of any balances which arise from the housing revenue account and, secondly, by contributions made to the fund as a general fund. I wish to ask the Minister whether anything will be put in the way of municipalities building up funds of that kind.
The next question relates to the effect of the quinquennial investigation. The


town clerk of Stoke-on-Trent is very uneasy about it. His view is that if at the end of the investigation there is a surplus in the housing revenue account and the Exchequer seeks to apply the concluding part of Section 130 (2) of the Housing Act, 1936—the surplus may be no more then than it is today—it is possible, if the local authority has not contributed to the account and the Exchequer contributions are continued under the Bill, that the Exchequer could claim that the whole of the surplus should be transferred to the Ministry. I want to know whether that could be so. According to my reading of the Clause, although I am not a legal man, that should not be so. I should like answers to my questions before we part with the Clause.

Mr. M. Lindsay: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), and I can assure him that his town clerk is not the only one who has anxiety on the subject. My local authority at Solihull is also worried about it.
Solihull is operating a differential rents scheme. It is anxious to have a surplus in case of bad times. It wants a surplus so that it can make rebates under the differential rents scheme and cover any losses which might be encountered in future.
Naturally, Solihull, like Stoke-on-Trent, is very anxious to ensure that there is some provision in the Bill whereby such local authorities can be safeguarded against raids upon surpluses by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I need say no more because the point has been put extremely well by the hon. Member, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that we seek.

Mr. H. Butler: I am sure that before we part with the Clause many of us would like to evaluate the misery the Bill will cause. We have to consider why it is necessary to insert such a Clause in a Bill of this character.
The Minister has made the position perfectly clear. Before this Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary has been in the fortunate position of sitting on the back benches and firing the bullets for the Minister. Now he has had to stand up to cross-examination. We have admired

his explanations while we have deprecated certain things which he has perpetrated.
We have now to look at the logical consequences of the Bill, which flouts the views of every local authority association. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know that there is not a local authority association which believes that the Bill should reach the Statute Book. There is a predominance among such organisations of authorities dominated by the Conservative Party. Therefore, the Conservative Party and the Minister are flouting the requirements of Conservative local authority representatives for dealing with matters affecting their citizens.
7.15 p.m.
In introducing the Bill, the Minister foresaw that he was flouting all local government opinion. The people carrying out our local administration have a sense of civic pride and responsibility in doing their day to day work, and one of the most important parts of their work is the provision of housing accommodation, in which private enterprise has failed. The Minister has introduced the Bill in spite of all that opposition. He knows the opposition exists. He will have received a letter at the end of January indicating the opposition of a local authority association to the whole Bill, and local authorities throughout the country are even now pressing for the Bill to be withdrawn.
The Clause strikes particularly at local government. It is, in effect, saying to reactionary local authorities, "Although in the past you have made a statutory contribution so that housing accommodation could be provided for tenants at rents which they could afford to pay, there is now no necessity for you to contribute." That is the sop to reactionary Tory local authorities who have told the Minister that the Bill was unpopular in their area. The Minister's answer has been, in effect, "I am the agent of Her Majesty's Government, who have said that there are to be cuts in public expenditure on our social services."
The Minister, in relation to cutting subsidies, has said that local authorities should look at their capital expenditure. He has now said, "You boys in the localities, being representatives on the local authorities, need not levy a rate for


the statutory subsidy." Obviously, the Minister will abolish the subsidy entirely, and he could not ask local authorities to make any contributions if he himself dissolved the partnership between the central and local governments. However, he is already telling local authorities that after 1st April they may stop making a statutory contribution.
This is the worst thing that could have been done to local government. It is a terrible situation that local authorities should be free to abdicate from their responsibilities. It is one of the most pernicious parts of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take the view that we ought to divide on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mitchison: I will begin by asking the Minister two further questions. I do not think there is much doubt about the answer to the first one, but before the right hon. Gentleman accepted the first of the two Amendments to the Clause some local authorities were genuinely puzzled as to whether, and, if so, how and under what powers, they could make voluntary rate contributions towards housing.
If he will—and this in itself is no contentious matter—I want the right hon. Gentleman to make the most categorical statement that local authorities can and may make what rate contributions they please towards housing, or none if they please, if the Clause goes through. I am quite certain that that is what the right hon. Gentleman intends. He has said so on many occasions, and it is the case that many local authorities now make them. I confess that I have been a little puzzled as to what powers they make them under, but I think that the fact that they can make them should be said quite categorically and with such particularity as the right hon. Gentleman can give to the statement.
The second is a slightly different point. Under the Clause the right hon. Gentleman has repealed all but one of the relevant paragraphs of the Eighth Schedule of the principal Act, that is the Housing Act, 1936. That, of course, would leave the eighth paragraph of that Schedule, which is important in this connection, in operation if it had some Section in the Act itself to hang on to. After all, the Schedule to

an Act is introduced by some Section. If the paragraph appears as a Schedule at the end without any indication of it in a previous Section, it has no more effect than a bit of waste paper.
I have to refer for a moment to the Third Schedule in connection with the repeal under Clause 8 (1, a.)The right hon. Gentleman has repealed Section 114 of the principal Act upon which that Schedule seems to me to depend for its purpose. I put that second point, probably a drafting one, now in case I have no time to put it later. If the Minister can assure me that I am wrong, he need not bother to tell me why or how. I will take it from him and his advisers that that is so. Equally, if anything needs to be done about it, I will take his answer now that he will consider it. That is the end of the reign of peace about this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that our having put forward Amendments and his having accepted them by no means reconciles us to the substance of the Clause. I put the substance of it in this way. The effect of the reduction of Government subsidies is to make it incumbent upon local authorities who go on to meet their general housing needs—as I hope they will do—to take out what they have lost by way of Government subsidies either from rates or from rents. They have no other resource, in general, for the purpose. The effect, therefore, of the Bill as a whole is to invite every local authority to consider how they are going to make good the deficiency which this piece of legislation will create in Government subsidies and how far they are going to do it out of the rates and how far out of rents.
I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman that when that is the position it certainly is not the moment to remove the obligatory rate contribution, because it will tempt a great many local authorities to put it all on the rents. I go one further. I am afraid that my opinion is that the party opposite would be rather glad if they did put it all on the rents. I suspect that the modern Tory philosophy looks at it this way. It says, "Here we have housing of various kinds, housing provided from private and from public sources, and we want open competition between them. We are cutting down now, and shall be totally removing,


the general housing subsidy from Government sources, and we are not at all anxious that local authorities should in general make any contribution from rates at all. We really should like to see the rents equalised on strict economic lines."
I cannot come to any other conclusion; otherwise I see no reason whatever to cut down compulsory rate contribution, though—although I do not agree with them—I can see the right hon. Gentleman's reasons for reducing the Government contribution. What is the fundamental reason for removing the obligatory rate subsidy at the moment? I do not believe that we have ever heard it. Is it a means of obliging local authorities to spend less by way of rates on housing? I think that we must assume that it is.
If it is, let us note that it has not been reduced but has been completely abolished as a compulsory contribution. It will result in one or two things. Either the Government's purpose will be effected and there will be a substantial reduction in the now voluntary contribution to be made towards housing, or housing will very largely be stopped. I should add a third alternative, following on the first, that the cost will be put on the rates.
We on this side of the Committee do not seem to be agreed with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the function and nature of public housing. We regard it as a fundamental service to the community. We regard it, as Government after Government have previously regarded it, as something that has to be assisted from Government funds and also from local funds. It has been so treated for a very long time indeed. It certainly was so treated by Labour Governments ever since the war. It was a mere recognition of the fact that if we try to put more on to the rents, for that is the effect of removing this compulsory rate contribution, we are simply going to increase the already considerable calls on people who cannot afford a council house.
This is very largely, though not entirely, a considerable rural problem. Every hon. Member who sits for a part of the countryside, including myself, knows perfectly well that there are in these villages many people very badly housed and sorely in need of rehousing

who ought to be rehoused on any social standard but who cannot be rehoused because they cannot afford to pay even the present rents.
If we are going to prevent a compulsory rate contribution, to some extent and in some places we shall enlarge that class. The extent of that class is a scandal to the community. Its growth will be an even greater scandal. Those who take any measure whatever, for whatever purpose, which will have the result of increasing that class among our fellow citizens ought to think again and ought to be ashamed of themselves for what they have proposed. It is dead wrong that there should be people in this country living under miserable conditions when in fact they could be and should be helped by the State and helped out of rates to live in reasonable conditions. Surely, that elementary proposition is recognised even by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
7.30 p.m.
We shall be told that this is not the effect. I agree that it is open for councils still to make these contributions, but far too much of the countryside is still electing councils which will seize the opportunity to cut down the rates at the expense of rents for the working class. That is wrong, and in the House of Commons nobody should defend such a practice. Yet that is the effect of this Clause, given the existence of that class of person and given the existence of some councils, which we all know exist, and which will be only too glad to have a cut at the rates at the expense of the rents charged for the smaller type of houses to those who are comparatively badly off.
Therefore, we take the strongest objection to this Clause, not so much because of its effect upon progressive, Labour-controlled councils which will make on a voluntary basis the contributions part of which was originally obligatory. We take objection to the Clause because of in, effect on councils which cannot think beyond the rates, which have even forgotten what a very distinguished Conservative politician, Joseph Chamberlain, said when he was Mayor of Birmingham, "High rates and a healthy city." That was his motto then. It is true that he lapsed afterwards——

Mr. Denis Howell: Would my hon. and learned


Friend allow me to remind him that at that time Joseph Chamberlain was a Liberal?

Mr. Ede: He was a Republican.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not quite at fault in my history, but perhaps I did not put it clearly. At any rate he is venerated, with too little distinction between the successive periods of his life, by numerous Conservatives and numerous Conservative bodies. Joseph Chamberlain organised Birmingham remarkably well for the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite and I thought that if I waved such a good Conservative name in front of those benches it might induce hon. Gentlemen to change their minds on this occasion.
To conclude, I say simply that the effect of this Clause will be to encourage reactionary, short-sighted, unprogressive councils, particularly in rural areas, to take it all off the rates, put it all on the rents, and increase the number of people who ought to have a council house and cannot afford one. For those reasons we oppose this Clause violently and we will divide against it.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked me a simple question of fact, namely, which was the relevant provision in the 1936 Act governing paragraph (8) of the Eighth Schedule, which is the operative one in this respect. It is Section 129 (1, e). He also asked under what power local authorities can make the rate contribution to housing now in view of the provisions of this Bill. The answer is that as the Bill stood originally local authorities had the duty to make up any deficiency which, of course, was not altogether satisfactory. Now, as a result of the Amendment which has been adopted, they will have the right to pay such sums as they think desirable into the housing revenue account.
Various points were raised about the creation of a reserve account, and also the right of the Exchequer to transfer any surplus there might be from time to time to the Exchequer. The powers referred to arise under Section 130 of the Housing Act, 1936. This provides that with the consent of the Minister the local authority may decide whether any surplus may be applied in whole or in part either by transferring it to the housing repairs

account or by carrying it forward in the housing revenue account to the next financial year. In so far as that has not been done, and some remains in the housing revenue account—as it could if the Minister had not agreed to one or other of the two courses—then it is within the rights of the Exchequer to claim that the remaining surplus shall be shared between the local authority and the Exchequer in the proportions in which the Exchequer subsidy and the local authority's rate contribution are being made.
That is the provision in the 1936 Act, but as far as I know the Exchequer has never claimed that right. The issue came before me only the other day, because it arises only once every five years. The decision I gave was that any surpluses should be carried forward in the housing revenue account, which seemed to me the right way of dealing with it under those provisions.

Mr. Mitchison: Then in that respect local authorities may expect no substantially different treatment from what they have had in the past?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) gave me a quotation from his speech, which I will read to the Committee. He said it might be the case that the surplus was no more at the end of the quinquennium than it is today, but that if the local authority had not contributed to that account—and it might not have done so as a result of the abolition of the rate contribution—
and the Exchequer contributions are continued under this Bill, it is possible that the Exchequer could claim that the whole of the surplus should be transferred to the Exchequer"—
notwithstanding that it was originally built up at a time when the local authority was contributing a proportion of the subsidies under the now existing law. I am not sure about that. The hon. Gentleman may be on a good point there. It is not our intention that such a situation should arise, so I will look at the point most carefully between now and Report stage.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As I do not believe in claiming credit for myself, may I say that it was our town clerk who pointed this out?

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Assuming that there is a balance, would the local authority concerned be entitled to absorb it in reducing rents? That is what has happened in the past on more than one occasion.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, of course it could use any surpluses or any money in the housing revenue account——

Mr. Gibson: To reduce rents?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, that is where the subsidisation of rents comes from.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman did not quite answer my question, although I believe he intended to do so. Is it the case that local authorities in this matter can expect not to have any substantially different or worse treatment than that which they had in the past?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. and learned Gentleman means, have I any intention of raiding their funds, I think he can accept it that we shall not do so. I have no reason to suppose that we intend to adopt any different attitude from that adopted by successive Governments in the past.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a general case at the end against the Clause, and I understand that he proposes to divide against it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was replying on the quinquennial issue, because it was better to have his reply, but am I correct in understanding from it that the municipalities will be allowed by good management to build up a reserve balance in any way they desire?

Mr. Sandys: We were dealing with the question of the surplus in the housing revenue account and I said that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South might have found a flaw in the Bill in that it might conceivably be argued—although it is a little far-fetched because the Exchequer has never raided these funds—that in fact the Exchequer would have such powers. I think it most unlikely that the Exchequer would use some flaw in the Bill in order not only to claw back what it had given but also to take what the local authority itself had put into the fund. If there is any anxiety on that score and if the point should be a sound one I will see whether it ought to be corrected on

Report. I am sure there is no serious ground for anxiety on that score.
The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that by removing the rate contribution we were deliberately encouraging local authorities to increase rents. What we are doing is giving them discretion to do what they think proper in these matters. Again and again, when I have taken some line on a particular issue, I have been criticised by hon. Members opposite for not trusting the local authorities. I am told always that the local authorities know best and that I can leave them to decide; they are the people on the spot who know the local conditions. But when we give them some discretion, as in this Clause, we are told that the local authorities cannot be trusted and that they will use this new discretion in order to raise rents for everybody to levels beyond those which they can reasonably be expected to pay. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: The right hon. Gentleman is having it both ways.

Mr. Sandys: Well, if hon. Members are allowed to have it both ways, then I should be allowed to have it both ways, too.
It seems to me that we are doing something very reasonable in that we are giving local authorities discretion to decide how much money should be put into their housing revenue account to meet their current needs in the light of local circumstances. At the moment, regardless of the cost of housing, of the rents being paid and of the large surplus they may already have in their housing revenue accounts, local authorities have a statutory obligation to go on paying into the housing revenue account a fixed sum each year in respect of each house.
Where there is a large surplus it means that the local authority has very little incentive, except its sense of responsibility, to try to run its housing management on more economic lines. That is not a good position either from the standpoint of the country as a whole or from the standpoint of the ratepayers in the area. The discretion which we are giving to local authorities in the Bill will, I am sure, not be abused. I am equally sure that it will provide a very welcome incentive to local authorities for good management and economy.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 160.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[7.43 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.
Molson, A. H. E.


Ashton, H.
Gurden, Harold
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Atkins, H. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Baldock, Lt. Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Maoclesld)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th. E. &amp; Chr'oh)


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Barter, John
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, R. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hinohingbrooke, Viscount
Partridge, E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Black, C. W.
Holt, A. F.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Body, R. F.
Hope, Lord John
Pott, H. P.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Horobin, Sir Ian
Powell, J. Enoch


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, John (Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Profumo, J. D.


Bryan, P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Raikes, Sir Viotor


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, M.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Campbell, Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, sir Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R, S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir Leonard
Sharples, R. C.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Keegan, D.
Shepherd, William


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, H. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kirk, P. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stevens, Geoffrey


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leather, E. H. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Storey, S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legg-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)



Dunoan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Teeling, W.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)




Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Errington, Sir Erlo
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fell, A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Foster, John
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vosper, D. F.


Freeth, D. K.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Wall, Major Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Hon. George (Woroester)


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Whlteiaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Comme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F.W.(Horncastle)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gower, H. R.
Mai Hand, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwlch)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Woollam, John Viotor


Green, A.
Marples, A. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekln)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawny, R. L.



Grimond, J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milllgan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Mr. Studholme and




Colonel J. H. Harrison.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Anderson, Frank
Benson, G.


Albu, A. H.
Bacon, Miss Alice
Beswick, F.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baird, J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Boardman, H.




Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Probert, A. R.


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, B.
Royle, C.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Jcger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Short, E. W.


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ledger, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cronin, J. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R- R. (Ipswich)


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, W. (Consett)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mahon, S.
Stross, D r. B arnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, E.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Timmons, J.


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Weitzman, D-


Gibson, C. W.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Grey, C. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hannan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hastings, S.
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pa ton, J,
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Holman, P.
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. Taylor.

Clause 9.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO RECOVER CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, at the end to insert:
and that the local authority of that exporting area nominated that person to the authority providing the dwelling as being a person in need of housing accommodation.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to consider, with this Amendment, the Amendment in page 8, line 3, to leave out from "determine" to the end of line 4.

Mr. Jenkins: In Clause 5, the Minister takes power to increase subsidies in certain circumstances. In this Clause, the Minister seeks to take power to recover moneys under certain circumstances. From subsection (1, a and b)

it will be seen exactly in what circumstances he proposes to endeavour to recover the money.
The prime object of the Minister in putting this Clause in the Bill is to recover contributions which he has in fact paid out and which he considers the local authority ought to pay. The Amendment seeks to add—and I should like the Committee to appreciate the last four or five words, which are the important ones—after "section" in line 37
and that the local authority of that exporting area nominated that person to the authority providing the dwelling as being a person in need of housing accommodation.
Section 12 (2) of the New Towns Act, 1946, empowers the Minister to make grants to new town development corporations of such amount of money as may be approval by the Treasury for the purpose of enabling the corporation to


defray expenditure other than expenditure properly chargeable to capital account. In Section 2 (2, a) of the Town Development Act, 1952, as we propose to amend it by the First Schedule of this Bill, authorises the Minister to make contributions to the council of the receiving district under that Act towards its expense of providing houses for persons coming from the area of some other local authority up to an amount not exceeding £8 in any one year.
Clause 9, as it stands, deals with the position where the Minister has paid an annual payment under either of the two powers which I have mentioned in respect of a dwelling provided by a new town development corporation or a receiving authority under the Town Development Act for the purpose of relieving congestion or over-population in an exporting area, and after 1st April next the dwelling is first used after its completion to accommodate any person who, in the words of paragraph (b), line 35,
… in the opinion of the Minister came there from an exporting area …
In other words, in the event of a person coming from one local authority area to another, the Minister's opinion has to be sought, and he must approve whether that person comes from the exporting area to the importing area.
In those circumstances it is suggested that the Minister would be able to recover from the local authority of that exporting area either a sum equal to one half of his payment or contribution in respect of that dwelling in that year or the sum of £4, whichever is the less.
This new idea of dealing with contributions between one area and another cuts right across the existing arrangements whereby exporting authorities at present nominate persons as tenants of houses provided by the receiving authority. Normally the exporting authority would nominate as persons in need of housing accommodation only those who are on their waiting list and whom they would regard as being in need of accommodation. That is to say, they would in fact nominate to the receiving authority or the town development corporation persons living in their area from whose rehousing the exporting authority would derive some benefit.
8.0 p.m.
Clause 9 goes much further than that, and would include people in respect of whom the exporting authority would feel itself under no obligation at all to provide housing accommodation. For instance, they might easily be tenants of privately-owned houses with the benefits of the Rent Restriction Acts. Again, they might be owner-occupiers of premises whose housing needs are amply suited in the exporting area. They can go over the borders without being nominated by the authority exporting them to the receiving authority and yet, under the Bill as at present drafted, my hon. Friends and I are advised that the Minister can in fact obtain £4 from the exporting area.
In other words, we are, by the Amendment, endeavouring to make abundantly clear that unless—as at present is the case—the exporting area nominated the tenant—and it would nominate a family only if there was need for housing—the Ministry could not recover contributions from the exporting area. The exporting authority would regard it as most unjust that it should be required to make any contribution in respect of other people.
If such people are required in a new town or receiving area because of some industrial qualification which they happen to possess, there is not the slightest reason why the exporting authority should bear any part of the cost of rehousing them. The exporting authority has not asked them to go and in many cases will not know that they have gone, but eventually the exporting authority will receive a demand from the Minister that it should pay £4 a year in respect of those people.
It does not follow that because they have ceased to occupy a dwelling in the exporting authority's area the property of the area is in any way relieved, because it is perfectly possible that some one may leave an exporting area to go to a receiving area and create a vacuum which is immediately filled although the local authority has no control over its filling. An owner-occupier in one area who wants to go somewhere else may well sell his house to a person living inside or outside the area and who was not on the local authority's housing list and who would have no chance of being rehoused by it.
My right hon. Friend earlier said that he was most anxious to give the maximum amount of discretion to local authorities, and I think that on the facts as stated—and I have very little more to say—one can see that a new system is in fact being arranged as between the exporting and importing authorities. As a result, the exporting authorities will be mulcted of large sums of money in many cases.
The Amendment accordingly seeks to limit the liability of exporting authorities to contribute in respect of houses provided for persons who have been nominated by them and from whose rehousing they may expect to derive some benefit. I move the Amendment in the hope, as on the last Clause, that the Minister will concede that the Amendment is fair and just. It would seem that here is an injustice to an authority which cannot guarantee that the family going to the other area is in need of housing. Unless the Amendment is adopted, the provision will be unfair and unjust to local authorities generally, and I therefore ask the Minister to accept the Amendment.

Mr. John Parker: I should like to give general support to the Amendment. My own Amendment seeks to draw attention to a particular point which concerns my constituency. It is that we in Dagenham are in the peculiar position of having two-thirds of the houses in the area belonging to another local authority, mainly the L.C.C. However, the West Ham Town Council also has a considerable estate there. That means, as the Bill is at present drafted, that it would be possible for the Dagenham Council to have to pay a contribution for people who leave L.C.C. houses to go to new towns such as Basildon, or Harlow, or one of the expanding towns, which are quite likely to be developed in Essex with its growing industrialisation, under the Town Development Act, 1952.
We feel it would be very unfair indeed that we should have to pay for people from the L.C.C. houses who went to those new towns, because the greater part of the vacancies of the L.C.C. and West Ham estates are, of course, filled not by the Dagenham Borough Council, but by the London County Council and the West Ham Council who bring people from London and West Ham to fill those

vacancies. It is true that we have an arrangement for a small number of vacancies on the L.C.C. Estate in Dagenham to be allocated to Dagenham, but that is nothing like the total number of vacancies in any one year, and this arrangement only lasts from year to year and has no permanency.
We feel that the Clause should be amended to make it clear that we in Dagenham should not have to pay for L.C.C. tenants who move to new towns when we do not have the filling of the vacancies. It would be quite possible in such circumstances for the Minister to include some other arrangements to allow the local authority on the spot to fill such a vacancy. However, that would be an additional complication and we would rather have the present Clause tidied up in such a way to make it clear that the local authority on the spot, if there happens to be an estate in its boundaries belonging to some other local authority, will not have to pay for people moving from the other local authority's estate to a new town. For we are advised that would be the case under the Clause as at present drafted.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up this point and, if necessary, either accept one of the Amendments or bring forward an Amendment on Report stage to make it clear not only that Dagenham will not have to pay for L.C.C. or West Ham tenants who go to a new town, but will give it wider effect so that in no case of a person moving from an estate belonging to some other local authority to a new town will the authority on the spot have to pay for that tenant.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like very briefly to support the Amendment. Unamended the Clause is intolerable, like every other Clause in the Bill, but unless the Amendment is accepted, more serious injustices and iniquities will be caused to what are called exporting authorities. I think it is significant that the provisions of this Bill have been subjected to scathing criticism not only from hon. Members on this side of the Committee but from the supporters of the Government. Not only is this a thoroughly bad Bill, thoroughly badly drafted, but this particular Clause, of all the Clauses, indicates the deliberate intention of the Government to weight


the scales heavily against congested areas where the authorities are faced with the gravest housing problems.
What affects the London County Council affects also the Metropolitan boroughs within its area. There may or may not be something to be said for the existing system under which some contributions are exacted when people nominated by the London County Council from its own waiting list are housed in the new towns. I do not think that there is anything favourable which may be said, and when we come to discuss the Clause I shall argue against it on principle. But as the hon. Member has pointed out, with great? cogency and with a number of pertinent illustrations, this proposal goes much further. The Minister would be enabled, without reference to the exporting authority, to exercise a completely arbitrary choice and take someone from an exporting area and place him in a new town.
No regard need be paid to whether the individual selected was in need of rehousing or was on any housing list, or whether his removal to a new town would relieve congestion in the exporting area. In densely congested areas in some London boroughs people may be moved without relieving congestion at all, because it is a notorious fact that, at any rate within recent years, the housing problem in London boroughs has been accentuated and aggravated by the uncontrolled influx of people into London not only from all over this country, but from overseas. There is no power to control that, and it is becoming a very serious problem. The question of priorities arises and people may be moved to new towns regardless of the merits of their claims for accommodation.
Under the present law the Minister may have power to do that and may decide to exercise that power. But surely it is heaping iniquity upon iniquity if the Minister also claims a completely arbitrary power to impose a charge upon the area from which such people come. I would give the Minister one illustration. I know of people from Lancashire and from Ireland and other places overseas who have settled recently in Islington. They may remain for a short period and have merely squeezed themselves into some already overcrowded flat or tenement. Those people may be selected and given a house in a new town. If

that happens, why should the area in which they have sojourned for so short a period be saddled with a financial burden?
Not only is this Clause thoroughly objectionable in principle, but unless there is some amelioration it will produce grave injustices, and I hope that the Minister will accede to the representations which have been made to him.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friends. I regard this as one of the most reactionary Clauses in the Bill. It is most unjust and unfair, both to local authorities and those people on their housing lists. The right hon. Gentleman is saying to people on the housing lists of local authorities, "No more housing subsidies for you. Housing subsidies are to be abolished." To local authorities he is saying, "You need not make any rate fund contribution to your housing scheme. Make the people on the housing list pay more rent. There is to be no help from us at all."
Some individuals who may come to a new town may not have been on the housing list of the exporting authority. They may have had ample accommodation or they may be owner-occupiers. They may not have lived in the area from which they come for as long as a month. In fact, there is no residential qualification attaching to this. The Minister does not lay down that a person need reside in an area for a specific time. When he arrives at the new town he is merely asked where he comes from, and that local authority has imposed upon it the obligation to contribute at least £4 a year for ten years although it may have no knowledge at all of the individual. I consider that most unfair to the people on the housing lists of local authorities.
I do not think that any local authority would mind making a rate fund contribution to rehouse a family on its waiting list, were that family desperately in need of accommodation. But once the right hon. Gentleman departs from that principle, and opens the door to individuals with no housing need and no residential qualifications, I suggest that it is most unfair. The Clause provides for the contribution to be paid in respect of the house provided by the Development Corporation, or under the Town


Development Act, for the purpose of relieving congestion or over-population in the areas of other local authorities. But one of the great weaknesses of the Government's policy is that although such individuals move from congested areas to new towns, whether or not they are on the local authority housing list, the fact remains that the congestion may not be relieved in the great majority of cases. The places which they vacate are promptly filled by other people moving in.

Mr. Albert Evans (Islington, Southwest): It is a continually repeating process.

Mr. Sparks: Yes. Soon after the new person moves in he may get a job in a new town and go there, thus making room for someone else. Theoretically, a constant succession of people could move into the new towns in that way, bypassing the housing lists of local authorities, or any residential qualifications. This would be a ridiculous situation.
We know that people come here from various parts of the Colonies. They are British subjects, and we must welcome them. But many come here looking for jobs, and if they go to new towns and get jobs, even if they have been in the country for only a month the local authorities from whose area they have come have to contribute for ten years in respect of their rehousing.
The Parliamentary Secretary ought to accept the Amendment, because it is a proposal of the A.M.C., an organisation which represents local authorities. I am quite sure that the Amendment would not have been moved but for the fact that great apprehension exists amongst all the authorities which have housing and over-population problems. They all feel that this is a most unfair and unjust proposition, both to themselves as local authorities and to the people on their housing lists.
If the Minister is anxious to expedite the flow of people from the congested areas into the new towns he can do so. He will find that those local authorities which have this almost insoluble housing problem will be only too glad to take whatever measures they can to facilitate the transfer and rehousing in new towns of some of their worst cases. This would involve not only closer co-operation with

town development corporations and local authorities under the Town Development Act, but the very closest co-operation with the owners of new industries—industrialists and other people who are building factories and other places of commercial activity in new towns.
When such people are thinking of building new factories, workshops or other places of work in new towns, they should ascertain exactly how many workers they will require, and the kind of work they require to be done. If they supplied that information to local authorities I am quite satisfied that their needs could be satisfied from the housing lists of those authorities, because those lists contain the names of men and women who are qualified for all kinds of work which will have to be done in new towns as well as in other industrial areas.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. If he does so I can assure him that it will not retard in the slightest degree the development of our new towns, or schemes for development areas, and it will remove an injustice to the people on housing lists of local authorities and also to the ratepayers.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: The brief point I want to make in support of the Amendment is that the number of families rehoused although not on the waiting lists of local authorities can often be quite large. A little while ago I asked the Minister for figures in connection with families rehoused from Middlesex in the new and expanded towns. In reply he said that of about 4,000 families who had been rehoused in that way since the introduction of a certain Circular in 1953, only 400 had been rehoused as a result of that Circular.
The Circular referred to what is known as the industrial selection scheme, by which local authorities could nominate to new and expanded towns people who were willing to be employed in certain categories of work. It was a tie-up between local authorities and industry. According to the Minister's figures, out of 4,000 families rehoused, some 3,600 were outside local authority waiting lists. There may have been a few of this number who were on housing waiting lists, but they were all rehoused outside this scheme. That is a very large number. Although this industrial selection scheme


is in operation, it is not working at all well, but it could be made to work effectively if the Minister so wished. All the industrial needs of these new and expanded towns could be met from families on the housing waiting lists of local authorities.
In the Circular which introduced the scheme the Minister indicated that, if possible, he would prefer that all the houses should be filled by nominees of the Exporting authorities, since they would be the people most in need of houses. Yesterday the Minister refused to allow additional financial help to local authorities to make their own arrangements for buying land and settling families from their housing waiting lists. Today it would appear that he is refusing to allow them to relieve their housing waiting lists in the most effective way—through this industrial selection scheme—by giving these financial grants to families who are being rehoused outside the housing waiting lists of local authorities. That may not be his intention, but that is how it would seem to work out.
I support the Amendment because it is totally unfair to the already overburdened and congested authorities to be asked to bear this financial burden in respect of families of whom many are not in great housing need at all.

Mr. Lindgren: I want to emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), although I do not go all the way with her. I shall explain why. The balance of this supposedly fifty-fifty arrangement seems all wrong. Experience has shown that when a firm moves into a new town 80 per cent. of the workers who are already with that firm move in with it, and the balance of 20 per cent. is left to be filled by other labour. Whatever scheme is introduced there will be difficulties. During the period of office of the Labour Government we had what we called a linkage scheme, in which we tied up a certain number of local authorities with certain new towns.
8.30 p.m.
It fell down. It always must fall down, because it is concerned with a redistribution not only of population but of industry. The skill of the worker has no attachment to the place in which he resides or to his housing conditions. I

concede the point that has been made by a number of hon. Members that very likely the whole of the 80 per cent. who moved with their firms from their places of residence were fairly adequately housed when they moved.

Mr. Sparks: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) seems to base his argument on 80 per cent. of the workers going with their firms. Will he qualify that, if he can, by relating the figure to the industries that may transfer from one area to another and close down their factories? Quite a lot of new industries, in addition to old ones, go to the new towns, and they have to recruit 100 per cent. of their labour.

Mr. Lindgren: My reference to the 80 per cent. was in relation to those who leave factories in a congested or nonconforming area, say London, and go to a new town. The general experience has been that 80 per cent. of the workers move with their factory while 20 per cent. say that they will get another job. The factory closes down, and the 20 per cent. have to find employment. Even where a new factory is started about 50 per cent. of the workers come from some of the other factories of the firms. They are key workers, although that term seems to extend much wider than the normal use of the expression.
We are dealing with a 20 per cent. make-up labour force which does not move with the firm. In the Labour Government's linkage scheme, and in the new industrial selection scheme which has taken its place, there is an effort to get these people off the housing lists of the local authorities. That has been difficult. A fellow moves to the job and he may have a brother or a brother-in-law. He introduces him to the works manager or the personnel manager and the relative is taken on. When that sort of thing goes on local authorities and Government Departments cannot very well interfere.
Under the normal financial arrangements made by the Labour Government for several new towns, because the development corporations had no rate fund we gave them a national subsidy, in addition to their normal rate contribution. Where the local authority provided a tenant for the scheme in the 20 per cent. cases, and the tenant came off the housing list, we asked the local authority for the


£4 contribution. That suggestion was enthusiastically accepted. The new town is a national project, an attempt by the nation to redisperse the population. We therefore accepted on a national basis financial obligations in regard to it.
Where there was a local obligation, the local authorities gladly accepted it. To bring this down now to a fifty-fifty basis is out of all proportion to the number of people who are moved. On the basis of housing need the Amendment ought to be accepted, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do so.

Mr. Powell: It may be convenient if I deal first with the narrower point raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). He drew attention to the fact that the maximum sum of £4 may, in the peculiar circumstances of the constituency which he represents, be recouped from a local authority which is not the authority mainly being assisted by the operation of decongestion represented by the new town or by town development.
There is very great force in that argument. I should like to assure the hon. Member that we shall look to see whether there is any practicable way of meeting it. It would not be possible to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment as it stands, for that would leave the authority from whom the contribution is to be recovered quite undetermined; so that, in theory at any rate, the Minister might charge the sum to Carlisle or Aberystwyth. However, we will see whether we can find some way of ensuring that the operation is fair in exceptional cases such as that of the hon. Member's constituency.
In dealing with the major subject of this debate which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins), I think it would be convenient for the Committee to have in mind as clear a picture as possible of the different types of operation with which we are dealing under this Clause and the associated Clause 8, and the different circumstances and conditions which apply.
Clause 8 (2) and Clause 9 deal with the relationship between importing and exporting authorities and the Exchequer in regard to the expenses incurred in providing houses for overspill population in new or in expanded towns. It has always been recognised that importing authorities

which undertake to build for overspill will need help, over and above the Exchequer subsidy preserved—and indeed increased—by Clause 3, in the early years of the development, when the income tends to lag behind the expenditure which has been incurred.
Exporting authorities have power to contribute under the Town Development Act, 1952, or, as the case may be, under the Housing Act applied by the New Towns Act. The present practice, as many hon. Members have reminded the Committee, is for exporting authorities to pay the equivalent of a rate fund contribution, usually for ten years, for houses provided for tenants nominated by them from their housing lists.
Where the overspill scheme is closely linked with the congested towns, and where it is possible, therefore, for the exporting authority to nominate all, or a very high proportion of, the tenants from its housing waiting list, there is no reason why the extra contribution should not be paid entirely by the exporting authority for its nominees, whether or not they are moving to a job in the new area. In such cases the Exchequer will not pay the £8 contribution. Existing undertakings of the kind which I have been describing are preserved by the provisions of Clause 8 (2).
In Clause 9 we deal with a different kind of case—the case where the population from a congested area includes a high percentage of people who are not nominated. This arises when a town is being developed to take industry as well as population—the sort of development which we are all anxious to encourage. In such cases it is inevitable that considerable numbers of people move to the expanded' or to the new town who are not nominated by the exporting authority. The labour requirements of industry have to be met. But it is still the fact that the workers who move out with the industries, or are recruited by them, may have been in overcrowded or unfit houses before the move, or they may actually have been occupying houses belonging to the housing authority of the area from which they came. In all those cases it seems fair that the exporting authority should make a contribution.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Why?

Mr. Powell: Because it is on a par with the rehousing of nominated tenants: because they are families of the type which the exporting authority is in any case under a duty to rehouse. They are part of that authority's rehousing obligation.

Mr. Fletcher: They may be people from overseas who are temporarily resident in what the Minister calls the exporting area.

Mr. Powell: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. I said "in all those cases." That is not all the cases of people who move with the industry or are recruited by the industry, but all the cases where those emigrants to the new or expanded towns come from overcrowded or unfit houses or are council tenants. In all those instances it is surely fair that the exporting authority should make a contribution, because the rehousing of these people pro tantoreduces the housing burden and obligation of the exporting authority.

Mr. Lindgren: I admit that that is a valid point if the man working in a factory is living in a council house and then leaves it and the council has the vacant accommodation, but, as the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) pointed out, the worker who moves with the factory is nine times out of ten not a council tenant but the tenant of some other landlord. In such a case the local authority has no control over the re-let. He may have been an owner-occupier who sells his house, in which case he is not concerned about who takes his house but about getting back the money he paid for it.

Mr. Powell: I intended to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Dulwich and others, but I carry the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) with me to this extent—that in so far as these people, moving out with industry or for industry and having life and employment in the new and expanded towns, have been living in unfit or overcrowded houses or are council tenants, it is fair that a contribution should be made by the exporting authority, even though the authority has not in fact nominated these people.
On the other hand, it would result in frightful administrative complexity if we

were to try to sort out with all the authorities of exporting areas the circumstances of each individual family which moved out under one of these schemes. We must therefore tackle this problem on broad lines, and I ask local authorities to look at the matter in that light.
The solution proposed in the Clause is that where a new town or a town development scheme provides for the reception of industry and population from congested areas, the Exchequer will pay an extra contribution, normally £8, additional to the £24 subsidy for all houses occupied by persons coming from congested areas, whether or not their names have been put forward by an exporting authority. In all those cases the importing authority receives the £24 subsidy under Clause 3 and will receive the Exchequer contribution, normally £8, either under Section 2 of the Town Development Act, 1952, or under the Housing Acts, as applied by the New Towns Act.
In a town development scheme the Exchequer undertakes to make this payment—that is, the £8—only during the first ten years, but the Government are prepared to look at the position at the end of that ten years and to continue some additional payment if it then seems to be necessary.
Clause 9 enables the Exchequer to recover one half of these contributions from the exporting authority from whose area the first tenant of any house came. Perhaps at this point I might deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and one or two others. They asked what we meant when we said, "He comes from an exporting area." They asked, "Is it necessary for him to have been there only for a night or for a month? Is he a bird of passage or is he a permanent resident?"
I would refer the Committee to the terminology of the Clause, which, in line 35, leaves it to the opinion of the Minister to determine whether, for the purposes of the Clause, the person concerned came there from an exporting area; and that is clearly a discretion which any Minister would endeavour to exercise in a reasonable manner.

Mr. Sparks: The Clause does not say anything about that.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell: The Minister has to be satisfied that for the purposes of the sort of considerations and payments involved under Clause 9, it is fair to regard the person as coming from the area of the exporting authority. This equal division of the extra contribution between the Government and the exporting authority, this 50–50 division, is thought to be a fair reflection of the relief of housing needs which will be obtained by development of this kind, and the adoption of a broad basis will avoid the need for a detailed examination of individual cases.
Of course there may be intermediate types between those in which practically all the tenants are nominated and those in which there is a substantial movement of industry and an appreciable part of the population is not nominated. For example, there might be a scheme in which the majority of the tenants would be nominated by the exporting authority but a small proportion of them would come out with the industry. In such a case it is contemplated that the arrangements under Clause 9 would apply to the industrial overspill but not to the nomination scheme. We must look at individual schemes as they arise and see what is fair and appropriate. These new arrangements will operate in relation to houses first occupied after 1st April next.
The effect of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich would be to limit the liability of the exporting authorities so that they paid one half of the contributions made by the Minister only where they nominated the tenants. That would not only be foreign to the general conception of the relief which this kind of development affords to the congested exporting areas, but it would also create gross unfairness between two exporting authorities. It would mean that an authority dealing with its overspill under a nominated scheme—under one of the schemes covered, for example, by Clause 8 (2)—would find itself paying the full rate contribution for each of the first ten years, whereas if it dealt with its overspill—the same type of person—under the types of development covered by Clause 9, it would be paying a maximum of only £4.

Mr. Lindgren: Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a big

difference between the two schemes? I take London County Council as a convenient example. Where London County Council makes a scheme with a receiving authority under the Town Development Act it is in control of that scheme and the tenants the whole time, but when it is a question of a new town the tenants who go in and, for want of a better phrase, make up the labour force of the industry, are not under the control of London County Council except for such industrial development of the new town as is, for the convenience of the Ministry of Labour, made up from its housing list.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Wellingborough has already agreed with me in so far as those persons who go to the new towns are persons from unfit or overcrowded houses or council tenants who might be nominated in a nomination scheme. By restricting this Clause to nominated tenants we should be introducing a quite unjustified discrimination between the case of housing an overspill family under a town development scheme not attracting Exchequer subsidy and housing it under a scheme which did attract Exchequer subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich said that the movement of these families to new and expanded towns represented no relief to the exporting area because the vacuum was immediately filled, but that is no argument at all, for it applies equally where a tenant is nominated under a nominated overspill arrangement. That difficulty, therefore, confronts us even in cases where it is admittedly fair that the full contribution should be paid by the local authority. Whichever way we look at the matter, we are confronted with this old problem of preventing the vacuum from being filled or completely filled again. That applies to this type of scheme and to any other, and is really no argument in either direction.

Mr. Sparks: If that is the case, why does the Clause contain the words
for the purpose of relieving congestion or over-population in the areas
if we are not relieving it either way, by the Minister's method or by the local authority's nomination scheme?

Mr. Powell: The words are in the Clause because for an Exchequer subsidy to be payable at all under the Town Development Act, 1952, the Minister has to


be satisfied not only that the town development is town development within the meaning of the Act on a substantial scale, but also that the provision of the accommodation will relieve congestion or over-population in certain areas there specified. It is a pre-condition of the Exchequer subsidy being payable that, broadly viewed, the scheme must be such as to relieve congestion or overpopulation.
I hope that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) will not ask the Committee to go back upon the principle of the Town Development Act and ask us to abandon the hopes which most Members of the Committee attach to it. The fact remains that whether the decanting—I had to come to that word at last—occurs under the arrangements referred to in Clause 8 or under the arrangements in Clause 9, we are equally confronted with the difficulty of the vacuum which at present is so often filled again.
Therefore, against the background of these new and expanded towns and their purpose, and bearing in mind that many of the people who go to live in them are directly or indirectly contributing to the

solution of the housing problem in the congested areas, I ask the Committee to agree that a roughly fair assessment of the extent to which the exporting authority's housing duties are assisted is to assess the contribution at one half of the rate fund subsidy. I ask the Committee not to narrow the application to nominated tenants and so to produce the unfair and illogical results to which I have called attention.

Mr. Lindgren: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his undertaking to look into the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), but the rest of his observations on the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) are unsatisfactory to us. In view of the lateness of the hour, however, we shall not argue the matter further but will carry it to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 192.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[8.51 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fienburgh, W.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Eric
McLeavy, Frank


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mahon, S.


Anderson, Frank
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bacon, Miss Alice
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Baird, J.
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Benson, G.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Beswick, F.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Blackburn, F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mulley, F. W.


Boardman, H.
Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Oliver, G. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Healey, Denis
Oram, A. E.


Boyd, T. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Owen, W. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Holmes, Horace
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Houghton, Douglas
Palmer, A. M. F.


Burke, W. A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Parkin, B. T.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, H. (Acorington)
Paton, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Clunie, J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Probert, A. R.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Proctor, W. T.


Collins, V. J. (Shoredltoh &amp; Flnsbury)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reeves, J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, 8.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pnos, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Deer, G.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, William


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lawson, G. M.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwlck)
Short, E. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, p. L. E.




Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Willey, Frederick


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, w.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Snow, J. W.
Thornton, E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Sorensen, R. W.
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sparks, J. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Steele, T.
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Weitzman, D.
Winterbottom, Richard


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
West, D. G.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Stones, W. (Consett)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. J. T. Price




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Ashton, H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Atkins, H. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd.)
Neave, Airey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nioolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Balniel, Lord
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Oakshott, H. D.


Barter, John
Hay, John
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Beamish, Maj, Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Osborne, C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Page, R. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Partridge, E.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pilklngton, Capt. R. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Black, C. W.
Holt, A. F.
Pott, H. P.


Body, R. F.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Powell, J. Enoch


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Howard, John (Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Profumo, J. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes, Hallett, vice-Admiral J.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bryan, P.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rawlinson, Peter


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Campbell, Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Carr, Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Channon, H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Russell, R. S.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir Leonard
Sharples, R. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Shepherd, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, w.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kerr, H. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dance, J. C. G.
Kershaw, J. A.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kirk, P. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, S.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Summers, G. S. (Aylesbury)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Duthie, W. S.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Teeling, W.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, Sir Erio
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd-George, Ma]. Rt. Hon. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turner, H. F. L.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Foster, John
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Freeth, D. K.
Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Vosper, D. F.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Walker-Smith, D. C.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Wall, Major Patrick


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maddan, Martin
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr, R.(Nantwich)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grimond, J.
Marples, A. E.
Woollam, John Victor


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mawby, R. L.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.



Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Fredercc (Croydon, N.W.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Mr. Godber and Mr. Barber.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, after "Act" to insert:
or by agreement with the owner.
I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Rhys, if at the same time I referred to the following Amendment to this Clause in my name: In page 8, line 29, after "building," to insert:
or in connection with the implementation of an undertaking for the demolition of an insanitary house given by the owner thereof in lieu of the taking by the authority of such action as aforesaid.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Yes, that would be for the convenience of the Committee

Mr. Mitchison: The object of these Amendments is to deal with one small practical point. Under the Bill as it stands, if an insanitary house is the subject of a demolition order, and in pursuance of that order is pulled down by the owner, the rehousing of the occupants attracts the higher rate of subsidy as an act of slum clearance. There may have been misunderstanding in some quarters that it is a slum clearance, even if it is a case of one insanitary house being pulled down on a demolition order, so perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would confirm this when he replies to the discussion?
There is another case. Assume that in the case of an insanitary house a council intends to take steps under the Housing Act and serves what is commonly known as a time and place notice on the owner. Without any demolition order being made, the owner undertakes to pull down the house. All it amounts to is that what the Housing Act intended to be done is done without the formality of a demolition order because both the owner and council agree.
This Amendment, which is in the names of my hon. Friends representing Coventry, tries to meet the situation by referring to an agreement with the owner. Perhaps that is a little wide. It might conceivably cover cases where there was an element of something else in the agreement, and it is probably better to keep strictly to what the Act intended in the case which I understand my hon.

Friends representing Coventry wish to cover, which is the one I have just described.
I suggest that my Amendment to line 29 exactly covers what is intended, and I know that it meets the views of my hon. Friends representing Coventry. Although I am moving the Amendment to line 25, what I am really putting forward is the argument for my Amendment to line 29 when we reach it, when, of course, no further discussion will be necessary.

Mr. Sandys: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has raised a small point but one which, I agree, is not properly covered by the Bill. I think it would be desirable to fill in the gap in the text of the Bill. I also agree with him that the text of the Amendment to line 25 is not entirely satisfactory, but the text of his Amendment to line 29 is entirely so and I recommend the Committee to accept it when we reach it.

Miss Elaine Burton: On behalf of my hon. Friends who, with me, represent Coventry, I would thank the Minister for what he has said and express my appreciation to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for having moved our Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: I should also like to thank the right hon. Gentleman. He did not however, in terms, confirm what I suggested, that there is no doubt—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say so for the record—that the demolition of a single insanitary house is an act of slum clearance and the rehousing of people from that house, therefore, attracts the higher subsidy?

Mr. Sandys: That is quite clear from the text of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison: I thought so, too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, after "building," to insert:
or in connection with the demolition of an insanitary house belonging to the authority.
The Amendment is designed to deal with the case in which an unfit house is in the possession of a local housing authority otherwise than as a result of the


procedure under Part III of the principal Act. There is no reason why the local authority should not get the higher subsidy on houses in its possession in those circumstances which it demolishes as unfit.

Mr. Mitchison: The Opposition welcomes the improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 29, after "building," insert:
or in connection with the implementation of an undertaking for the demolition of an insanitary house given by the owner thereof in lieu of the taking by the authority of such action as aforesaid."—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, at the end to insert:
from houses which are unfit for human habitation and not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, or which are so arranged as to be congested, or, where the re-development plan was submitted to the Minister before the third day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, from any house in the re-development area.
The concluding words of the subsection refer to the:
… the carrying out of re-development in accordance with a re-development plan within the meaning of the principal Act.
These re-development plans in that sense are a rather curious animal which is now almost extinct. There was a provision in Part III of the principal Act whereby as an alternative to declaring a clearance area a local authority could deal with an area by declaring it a re-development area.
The conditions for doing so were that at least one-third of the houses in it should be unfit, and that the houses should be not fewer than 50. It was a kind of rudimentary form half-way between slum clearance and comprehensive development as we now have it under the planning Acts. It happens that one scheme of this character was submitted before the war and that since the war four such schemes have been submitted, making a total of five in all. It further happens that the four post-war schemes relate entirely to unfit houses whereas the pre-war scheme includes a number of fit houses, although it falls, of course, within the definition which I have just given to the Committee.
It seems right that these schemes which have already been submitted and which

are overwhelmingly of the nature of true slum clearance should be included within the ambit of the definition for the purposes of Clause 3 (3, a). On the other hand, there is every reason why the redevelopment procedure should not, if used in the future, attract the subsidy. It is not in itself a satisfactory way of proceeding with either slum clearance or comprehensive development. To use a technical term, it is really too grey for the former and too restricted for the latter.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the schemes already submitted shall qualify for the higher subsidy but that in future this obsolescent, if not obsolete, form of replanning shall not attract the higher rate of subsidy to houses which, in our view, ought to be dealt with by the other and more effective methods now available.

Mr. MacColl: This Amendment, moved so blandly by the Parliamentary Secretary, is a pitiful end to a sordid and shabby operation which has been undertaken during the Committee stage of the Bill. This is much more than the Parliamentary Secretary suggested. He talked as if it were just a minor drafting Amendment which everyone would accept. It is in fact a retreat even from the moderate position which had already been taken on the question of redevelopment.
When we discussed a couple of days ago whether or not comprehensive redevelopment should attract subsidy at that stage the Bill included what is commonly known as the 1935 redevelopment procedure as attracting subsidy. Indeed so much so that I quoted in the course of the discussion a letter written by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) about the East Kilburn redevelopment scheme in which he said that in order to attract the subsidy the scheme would have to take place either as slum clearance or redevelopment.
So at that stage in the operations of the Ministerial mind it was proposed to allow this method of getting redevelopment with subsidy and it is since then apparently that there has been a change of policy. That letter was written after the Second Reading, and now this particular procedure is to be rejected. The hon. Gentleman said—and he has behind him the solid weight of the Departmental


records and I am sure he must be right—that only one redevelopment scheme was started before the war.

Mr. Powell: Outstanding now and which was submitted before the war; not yet carried out.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: The hon. Gentleman's records certainly beat me about what is outstanding and what is not. I can remember two. They were the Bethnal Green scheme and the Paddington scheme. I do not know whether the Bethnal Green scheme is completed, but I do not wish to say anything about it. The Paddington scheme has changed its form, because the property has been acquired by the London County Council, the Paddington Borough Council having proved itself incompetent to undertake the work. I was brought up on that, because I was a member of the council at the time we were wrestling with the problem.
There arose this curious situation: off the Harrow Road in Paddington was an area called the Clarendon Street area which everybody except the experts recognised as being one of the vilest pieces of bad housing in the country. Even in evidence before the Royal Commission on Housing in the 1890s it was being cited as an example of awfully bad housing with the social problems of what are commonly called slums.
It so happens that these houses were tolerably well built, although totally unfitted for the large number of people crammed into them. They were wind and water tight and satisfied medical officers of health that they were fit for human habitation and at no stage could they be represented under the old Housing Acts as slum clearance areas.
Not very far away in the same Borough there was some mews property, the kind of mews property which has been rented at enormous rents as a fashionable type of society dwelling. This could fairly be regarded as slums, because the angle of the light was not of the correct number of degrees and for one or two other quite technical points of that sort. Because of those technical conditions, it so happens that the mews property was bad and was technically slum property and therefore the clearance area procedure could be used. However, this great mass of horrifying property could not be tackled, be-

cause of the medical decision that it was not unfit. The mews property was not too bad for the upper classes to live in it.
Then came, as one of the few good things from the pre-war Tory Governments, the Housing Act, 1935. That introduced the re-development procedure which enabled the property to be tackled precisely because of the bad arrangement and overcrowding which had made it so frightful. My recollection—this is a long time ago—is that we prepared it for a development area and drew up plans. I cannot remember how far we got, but that does not matter, because I am only using it as an illustration; but I reject the suggestion that one can do all one wants by the use of purely medical decisions about unfitness under the Housing Acts while paying no attention to the wider social problems of really bad property.
That is the great issue which divides us. I say to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman who finds it a subject of happy amusement that just as the Government tried to inflate their housing programme at the expense of other important work, what they intend to do is at all costs to knock down any derelict house that can be found and say that they are clearing the slums, when in fact they are leaving the most difficult areas because one cannot touch them, because one cannot get the subsidy to re-house the people in them. This is no place or time to start an argument about comprehensive development—we have had that argument—but what possible case can there be for the Government to change their mind now and to take this procedure out of the Bill? It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say—because it is not so good as comprehensive development and we can get more under comprehensive development—whose hand held the dagger which "slit the throat" of comprehensive development. The Parliamentary Secretary encouraged the party opposite against giving subsidies for comprehensive development.
If comprehensive development had been allowed, we should not need to keep redevelopment in the Bill. Because it has been taken out of subsidy, we need this poor little second-best. It is a pitiable thing with which to end up the Bill. It is not a matter of the number of cases, which may not be great, but I have given


one illustration to show the kind of case that has happened. I say that, even for the sake of such cases, it would be worth while to keep it in the Bill, and I cannot understand why the Government have decided to act in this mean way.

Mr. Gibson: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). I remember the Bethnal Green scheme, when we trudged around streets, courts and alleys before we decided to schedule it as a redevelopment area. Areas of that kind may contain dark and evil-smelling alleys and miserable courts. In my own borough there was one called "Paradise Court" but it was a fearful place for people to live.
Merely to pull down houses in that court would not solve the problem of redevelopment Under this procedure we were able to take in a much wider area and sometimes to pull down what was technically a sound house It was possible to clear some streets in order to provide reasonable facilities for redevelopment. As a result of this Amendment such a course of action will no longer be possible.
It is a thousand pities that the Government, who have already broken the hearts of a good many people who are really keen about housing reform, should, at the tail end of this Bill, put in an Amendment which will abolish one of the few opportunities we might have had of doing some redevelopment where houses and streets are badly overcrowded, and not merely in the case of slum houses in the medical sense; where walls are falling in or there is no light or sanitary convenience or where the floors are rotting.
Members of housing authorities who desire to do something to make their town a reasonable place in which to live will be severely handicapped, and the chance of having fine towns will become more remote. That illustrates what an awful Bill this is from the point of view of those people who want to see our towns and cities made into places fit for the workers to live in. It is a pity that the Government have brought forward the Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Mr. Sandys: I will reply to the further remarks made by the hon. Member for

Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson). The hon. Member for Clapham seems to misunderstand the situation. The Bill does not repeal in any way the powers of local authorities to carry out redevelopment under Sections 34 and 35 of the 1936 Act. In that respect their powers remain exactly as they are today. What the Bill does not do is to give a slum clearance subsidy to all houses built to rehouse people displaced in the whole of a redevelopment area, for the simple reason that the subsidy we are talking about is for slum clearance purposes and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, one of the provisions of the 1936 Act is that only one-third of the houses in the area in question need be unfit for the area to be deemed a redevelopment area for the purposes of that Act. Any unfit house which may exist in an area redeveloped under Sections 34 and 35 of the Act will, of course, qualify for the £22 subsidy under the Bill.
The procedure laid down in the 1936 Act has proved to be slow, complicated and generally unsatisfactory. That is why it has become virtually a dead letter. Since the Town and Country Planning Acts were passed areas of comprehensive redevelopment have been introduced, and the procedure for declaring areas of redevelopment under the 1936 Act has ceased to be used. There are just five outstanding cases, to which my hon. Friend has referred, and we felt that it was fair that as they were already, so to speak, in the pipeline, they should be picked up by the provisions of the Bill.
I quite understand the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Members opposite in favour of extending a special subsidy to all comprehensive redevelopment areas under the Town and Country Planning Acts, but we have already had fairly lengthy discussions upon that subject and it has nothing to do with the Amendment. The Committee has taken a decision upon the matter. There is no case whatsoever for giving a new lease of life to the unsatisfactory and obsolescent procedure under the 1936 Act. The immediate effect of allowing the slum clearance subsidy to be available for areas which might contain no more than 33 per cent. of slum houses would be to encourage local authorities, in order to get more subsidy, to revive


this procedure, which they all regard as most unsatisfactory.
It would be wrong to approach the matter in that way. If the Committee, or the House on Report stage, thinks it right that areas of redevelopment as a whole, fit as well as unfit houses, should qualify for slum clearance subsidy, the right thing to do is to amend the appropriate part of the Bill. We should not introduce it in a rather back-door way, which will only revive and encourage a most unsatisfactory procedure. I am sure that on reflection all hon. Members will agree that this would not be a desirable procedure.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I rise only to get the record right. The Minister talked about houses in these areas, which, he said, were areas with only 33⅓ per cent. slum houses. Of course, there had to be something much more than that, such as bad arrangement not only of houses but of streets, and serious overcrowding. It must be clear that that was part of the procedure under the redevelopment plan.

Mr. Mitchison: Here we are again, "extending the higher rate of subsidy." I picked out that rich and fruity phrase from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government, having made up their mind to cut the housing subsidy except in cases where even the Tory Government has not the face to cut them, want to know whether this is one of those cases or not. That is what we are considering.
Let us see how the matter stands. There is no doubt that for individual or grouped insanitary houses, the Government have not the face to cut the existing subsidy. It is equally clear that the Government will not have any nonsense about planning. I well remember, from the days when the Government party were in Opposition, that their ideal was chaos as far as possible, the jungle of free competition and disorderly arrangement. We understand that, and we are not altogether surprised that the Government rejected any suggestion about including comprehensive development and turned deaf ears to even the pleas of the blitzed cities in that matter.
This is a much smaller matter. The right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary get up, and, as it were, sniff

at redevelopment. I quite agree that if they had left in the proper alternative of comprehensive development there would not be very much to be said for this proposal, but they are using the existing subsidies in some cases in order to try to direct such few activities as councils still have enough money to exercise. Having shut the direction of comprehensive development and of proper redevelopment, the Government have left in, as a mere matter of form, insanitary houses in a clearance area, or insanitary houses, or houses so arranged as to be congested inside a redevelopment area. If that were all, there is no substantial difference between the two classes of provision, but the Government are excluding the possibility of—to quote the redevelopment section—
redeveloping the area as a whole.
The object of these redevelopment provisions and the way in which they have been used—perhaps not enough, but they have been used—has been to redevelop bad areas as a whole.
I still remember the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor paying lip-service to what had been done in Birmingham. What we are trying to do, in face of the determination of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on Government benches never to take the blinkers off but to look at the problem house by house, is to beg them, if they will not accept comprehensive development, at least to let the poor councils who want to develop areas as a whole, have every encouragement to do it. Otherwise the Government will shut the door to proper redevelopment as a whole, proper provision for open spaces and proper provision for amenities of all kinds.
In fact, the Government will step right back, out of the area of some degree of municipal planning, to the time when nobody thought we need arrange anything except the immediate building or house with which we were concerned at the moment. That is really the backward step that they are trying to force councils to take here.
Let me remind the Committee that the decision to have a redevelopment area at all is one that must be taken by the council and must be founded on the belief of the council that the particular area cannot be dealt with in a patchwork,


house-by-house manner, but must be redeveloped as a whole. Why on earth, in this year of grace, should councils be deterred from doing just that? It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to say that they have statutory liberty to do it. Of course they have statutory liberty to do it, but what he is trying to do by this discrimination in subsidies is to discourage them from doing it just as far as he can.

With regard to the definition that is now put in, this remarkable change of mind of the Government since the Bill was first drafted—or will they say that they forgot all about it—is simply one more step in the Tories' rapid road backwards into chaos and darkness.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 145.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mawby, R. L.


Ashton, H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Atkins, H. E.
Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Balniel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'eh)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Beamish, MaJ. Tufton
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Hn. Phellm (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Osborne, C.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holt, A. F.
Page, R. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Horobin, Sr Ian
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Black, C. W.
Howard, John (Test)
Partridge, E.


Body, R. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Brooman-White, R, C.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pott, H. P.


Bryan, P.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Powell, J. Enoch


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, J. D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SatfronWaiden)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Campbell, Sir David
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, D. L. M.


Channon, H.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir Leonard
Robinson, sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Keegan, D.
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Kerr, H. W.
Russell, R. S.


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, J. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dance, J. c. G.
Kirk, P. M.
Shepherd, William


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C- G.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)




Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, E. H. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legge-Bourke, MaJ. E. A. H.
Storey, S.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Legh, Hon Peter (Petersfield)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Studholme, H. G.


Duthie, w. S.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Summers, G, S. (Aylesbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Sumner, W. D M. (Orpington)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, W.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd-George, Maj- Rt. Hon. G.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Fell, A.
Longden, Gilbert
Touche, Sir Gordon


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vickers. Miss J. H.


Foster, John
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Vosper, D. F.


Freeth, D. K.
Mackie, J. H. (Calloway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wall, Major Patrick


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Macpher8on, Niall (Dumfries)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Cough, C. F. H.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Cdr, J. F. W. (Hornoastle)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Woollam, John Victor


Grant-Ferris Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.



Grimond, J.
Marples, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. R. Thompson and Mr. Wilh.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Parker, J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baird, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Probert, A. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hobson, c. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Benson, C.
Holmes, Horace
Rhodes, H.


Beswick, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hubbard, T. F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Ross, William


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Royle, C.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon, E.


Boyd, T. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Short, E. W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, Mrs, Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Sparks, J. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Chapman, w. D.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Clunie, J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lindgren, G- S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Mabon, Dr. J. D.
Sylvester, G. 0.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Themas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Cronin, J. D.
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Timmons, J.


Deer, G.
Mahon, S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Weitzman, D.


Dodds, N. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
West, D. G.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Moody, A. S,
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Willey, Frederick


Fienburgh, W.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, C. F.
Owen, W. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.


Question put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. D. Jones: I want to raise two small points. Subsection (1) defines the operations of the local authority under the Housing Acts which are deemed to constitute slum clearance or redevelopment for the purpose of Clause 3 (3, a). I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the extension of the subsection in order to enable the higher rate of subsidy to be paid in respect of housing provided to accommodate persons displaced from houses which are the subject of action by local authorities under the public health legislation or local Act powers because the house is in imminent danger of collapse.
Section 75 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, and Section 58 of the Public Health Act, 1936, together with a number of provisions in local Acts, confer on the local authority special powers for dealing by an emergency procedure with houses which are a danger either to passers-by in the street or to the occupants of the premises concerned or adjoining premises. When those powers are used it virtually means that the house has passed the stage when action under the Housing Acts for a demolition order would be appropriate, because immediate action is needed.
Since those houses are usually in a worse and certainly a more dangerous condition than those referred to in subsection (1) of the Clause, it is suggested that it would be reasonable for the Minister to secure that the benefits of the


higher rate of subsidy are paid when those houses have to be demolished and their occupants rehoused.
It is no answer to say, in respect of buildings of that kind, that the local authority might exercise its powers under the Housing Acts for the demolition of the property. The Public Health Act powers are emergency powers, whereas the powers under the Housing Acts involve a long and rather complicated procedure, and afford a recalcitrant owner considerable opportunities for obstructive tactics. If a house is falling down into the street it is essential that the most expeditious powers should be available, and that the local authority should not be deprived of the higher subsidy because it uses them.
I hope the Minister will consider those two points, and see whether he can make the higher rate of subsidy available when those powers have to be used.

Mr. Eric Johnson: It was my intention to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the point that has been made by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones). The procedure under the Housing Acts, as the Committee is aware, is very lengthy. Twenty-one days has to elapse after the time of giving notice of intention to apply for a demolition order and then at least another twenty-eight days before the house has to be vacated. In Manchester many houses are in a bad condition. Such houses sometimes fall down before the normal procedure under the Housing Acts can be put into operation. Not only are such houses unfit, but, as the hon. Member for The Hartlepools has pointed out, they are positively dangerous.
would add to what the hon. Member has said that in Manchester we are able to pull down these houses not only under the provisions of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, and the Public Health Act, 1936, to which he referred; in the case of Manchester, we can deal with them under our own local legislation. It seems unfair that a local authority does not get a subsidy for pulling down houses under these conditions; and it would be little more expensive to allow the £22 subsidy to apply in cases of that kind.
Furthermore, payment of the subsidy would ensure that there was no delay in

pulling down the houses. There would be no inclination by an authority to wait to go through this rather lengthy procedure to get the subsidy when it could act and still get the subsidy, knowing that the house would be removed. I ask my right hon. Friend to look into these points and see whether they can in any way be included in the Bill.

Mr. Powell: Many of the houses to which both the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) have referred are such as could be, and probably often are, dealt with under the Housing Acts by demolition orders. Nevertheless, without making any commitment, the point shall be looked at.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS ANDADAPTATIONS IN OTHER ACTS.)

Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, to leave out "In."
This Amendment corrects a slip, and I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) for drawing attention to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to move, in page 13, line 36, to leave out the second "authority" and to insert "association."
A misprint must have occurred. The word should have been "association" from the start. It is a purely drafting Amendment.
I should like to take this opportunity to say, as is customary, and as, I sincerely believe, hon. Members in all parts of the Committee feel, that the Bill has been much improved by the Amendments which have been made. I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their co-operation.

Mr. D. Jones: The Bill would have been improved had the Minister accepted our Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

Orders of the Day — IRAQI STUDENTS (RESIDENCE PERMITS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

9.54 p.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I am very glad that the attention that the Committee has been paying to the important Housing Subsidies Bill has finished in time to allow us a few extra minutes to deal with this important matter. It is my intention to be as brief as possible in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and other hon. Members who are present may have an opportunity of addressing the House.
The matter that Mr. Speaker has allowed me to raise tonight concerns the action of the Foreign Secretary in compelling three Iraqi students to leave this country a week or two ago. His order to them to leave came during the Christmas Recess and there was no opportunity to raise the matter in the House, although it has been referred to since the House met again. It will be necessary to go back a little way and explain what this is all about.
I first became interested in the case of these students in the summer of last year. There are several hundred Iraqi students here in Britain, some on Government grants and some paying for their own further education, and I am advised that 80 per cent. of them are organised in the Iraqi Students' Society.

Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. Member said that he became interested in the case of the students in the summer of last year. Is he referring to the general question or to the three particular cases?

Mr. Griffiths: I am referring to the general question, and it is necessary to say something about that. As I have said, 80 per cent. of the students are members of the Iraqi Students' Society. Some of the members of the Society have been in conflict with their Government, with the result that their grants and their passports have been withdrawn. That is not a matter for the British House of Commons and I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the

Home Department will refer to it, but, in parting, I will say of the alleged misdemeanours of members of this Society that, as far as I have been able to judge, by Western democratic standards their crimes are very small. However, we are concerned about the action of the Home Secretary and British responsibility in the matter.
Among the men whose passports and grants were withdrawn in the summer was Mr. Nuri, one of the three students about whom I am specially complaining this evening. At the time, the students were extremely worried as to what was going to happen to them. They wondered whether they would be able to stop in this country and I made representations in the summer of last year to the present Joint Under-Secretary's predecessor.
Eventually, the Home Office agreed that the men who had lost their passports and Government grants and were non persona grata with the Government of Iraq could remain here on conditions which it is usual to apply to overseas students. These conditions were that they must make reasonable academic progress, that they must have adequate financial support, and that they must be in possession of a laissez-passerin case the Home Office had to return them to their own country.
This third condition was waived by the Home Secretary later last year when it was pointed out to him that it was extraordinarily difficult for these students to obtain such a document from their own Embassy here, as the whole object of the operation on the part of the Iraqi Government was to bring pressure to bear on them and make them return to Iraq.
I do not suppose that the Joint Under-Secretary will say that the three men against whom he has proceeded have failed to satisfy those conditions. Indeed, the whole of this business is shrouded in mystery. It has caused widespread comment in the Press, notably in a leading article in the Manchester Guardian, to which I shall refer in a moment.
In the summer, then, the cases of these men were not proceeded with further as far as our own Government were concerned. They were allowed to stay, but in the Christmas Recess there suddenly came this action by the Home Secretary, when Parliament was not sitting, when he said that these students had to leave


this country by 20th January. 1 at once made representations to the Joint Under-Secretary, who was good enough to see me, and I saw the Home Secretary later with some of my Parliamentary colleagues.
I should like to refer in more detail to these three men.
Mr. Nuri was one of those who had his Government grant and passport withdrawn in the summer. He was hoping to sit for his final B.Sc. examination in electrical engineering in June this year. He had been in this country four and a quarter years, so presumably the Home Office knew about him——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Griffiths: It seems to me extraordinary that after the man had been here such a long time this mean action was taken against him when he was within six months of taking his finals. When I talked to these Iraqi students I felt deeply ashamed about the behaviour of the British Government in this matter. They have gone back to their country with a lesson in British democratic practices which does not reflect any credit upon any of us. They have not been told the charge against them, they have not been put on trial, they have simply been arbitrarily ordered out of the country.
In addition to Mr. Nuri, Mr. N. A. R. Hussain was to take his final examinations in March, 1957, for a diploma also in electrical engineering. There was also a Mr. Mustafa, who was due to complete his studies in two years, also hoping to take a degree in mechanical engineering. It is a curious business so far as these two latter men are concerned.
Apparently they are persona grata with the Iraqi Government and they still retain their passports and educational grants. I know that we shall hear from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, as I heard from the Home Secretary, that the fact that proceedings were taken against two people who are persona grata with Bagdad is clear evidence that the Home Office and the British Government

have not succumbed to pressures put upon them from the Middle East.
Indeed, all the way through this matter the Home Office has said that the decision was taken entirely in British interests. Yet the House will recall that on Monday last some of my hon. and right hon. Friends had Questions down to the Foreign Office. Anyone who reads HANSARD for last Monday will see at once that despite the cagey quality of the answers given, the matter had been referred to the Foreign Office by the Home Office. Having re-read HANSARD tonight, it is clear to me that pressures have been brought to bear on the British Government from Bagdad, though whether it be the case that this has proved decisive is a matter upon which we must try to make up our own minds without the advantage of much evidence, because the Home Secretary has never brought any charges against these men.
What did the Joint Under-Secretary of State say on Monday of this week? In response to a supplementary Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) he said:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Foreign Office does act as a channel of communication in these matters, but the decisions are for the Home Secretary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th January, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 583.]
It is clear from the answers of the Minister that the Foreign Office has been active and interested in this matter.
The difficulty we are up against in this case is that no details of charges have been brought against these men. Everybody who met them before they were compelled to go home would agree. I think, that they were non-political types on the whole, and anyone who is a political animal can pretty well detect what are a man's politics after a while. Also, I am sure that in the Iraqi Students' Society there are many hundreds with varying points of view. I do not knew whether the Home Office now says that if a man holds a political point of view as a foreign student in this country that provides grounds for deporting him at the request of his home Government. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell us?
Here I come to what I regard as a very serious matter. We in this House and in this country are extremely proud of the sanctuary that we give to aliens


who, we feel, would be in danger if we compelled them to leave these shores. Speaking with a due sense of responsibility, I really believe that these men are in some danger of at least losing their freedom when they go back to their home country. As I am sure this debate will be reported in the Middle East, if it does nothing else it may at least cause the Iraqi Government to be a little cautious about how they treat these young men.
I would again ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether he is absolutely satisfied that these men will not be in danger. The Home Secretary said that all that is happening to them is that they are going to be put into the Army to do their military service. I am advised that in Iraq, and in Basra in particular, there are so-called military training establishments which are, in fact, rather gruesome detention camps. I should like to know whether that is the sort of place to which the Joint Under-Secretary thinks the students may be going. If there is any reason to be apprehensive about the safety of these students, will he undertake to make representations to the Foreign Office for inquiries to be made in Bagdad in order to reassure us that the students are not being victimised or losing their freedom and that our apprehensions are not justified?
Civil liberty is not enjoyed in Iraq as it is here, and many of these students have been informed, through devious means, by their families that they should at all costs avoid returning to Iraq. They have been warned to be careful about returning because their families have the liveliest apprehensions about what is likely to happen to them if they do.
I hope that even now it may be possible for the Joint Under-Secretary to give us some idea of the charges which are being made against these students. As the Manchester Guardian rightly said in its leading article, the only explanation given by the Home Office is that they must go because their presence is not conducive to the public good, and the Home Secretary is not obliged to give his reasons for an expulsion, but if he does not do so, all kinds of suspicions grow up, and he cannot complain. Of course, the Home Secretary cannot complain.
It sounds absolutely monstrous to say that the Home Secretary has perhaps deliberately chosen two people, who are

in possession of their passports and their Government grants, just to make a gesture to the Iraqi Government to get some of them out of this country and break the solidarity of the Iraqi Students' Society in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may say that that is an outrageous observation, but, as the Manchester Guardian quite properly said, the Joint Under-Secretary cannot complain because he has not told us anything, and unless he is able to tell us a little more tonight than he has done in the past, we shall all continue to be worried about the fate of these students.
I cannot end without referring to other people who are involved, other students whose permission to stay here is very short-term. Can the Joint Under-Secretary assure us that this is the end of the campaign against the Iraqi Students' Society, or is there anything intrinsic in the constitution of the Society or its behaviour as a collective body that makes him feel that he must taken even further action in the future?
I leave it there, but I hope it will be possible for some other hon. Members to express their points of view. I hope the House will receive something more from the Joint Under-Secretary than we have had from him in the past. The chief officers of the Home Office have recently been under attack in connection with capital punishment and three men recently pardoned, and there is a feeling that there is a growing illiberality in the handling of the Home Office. May the Joint Under-Secretary disabuse us of that notion if we are wrong.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Philip Bell: It is no secret that a number of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have interested themselves in this problem. I am very glad to think that the traditional jealousy of the House for the freedom, not only of Englishmen, but of visitors should cause hon. Members to endeavour to investigate these matters to the best of their ability. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps excuse me if I do not follow him entirely in all his observations, but a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House were interested enough to consider the matter.
There were two things which impelled me to pay attention to it. The first question was whether this was a question of


political asylum. That is a traditional feature in our country. Were these students being forcibly ejected from the country because they objected on reasonable grounds to being sent to the Army or whatever it was, and was the Home Secretary ejecting them against their will?
I should like to know from my hon. Friend whether any appeal was made to the Home Office that they should not go back on the grounds that they wanted political asylum and that they would be directly or indirectly persecuted or punished for some political opinions which they had expressed in this country and which did not agree with the views of the Government in Iraq. If I can be satisfied on that, that removes a great deal of my anxiety. I should not like it to be thought that we had refused political asylum to students. That is the first thing to find out.
The next thing which I am concerned about is this. Can my hon. Friend assure me, not that there were no discussions—that would be asking too much—but that there was no pressure direct or indirect, advice or encouragement given by the Iraqi Government to the Home Office that these gentlemen should go back? They obviously may have asked whether they were married or where they lived or what they were going to do, but as I conceive it, the duty of the Home Office or of Her Majesty's Ministers when they are considering the question of removing passports is to make an individual decision which must not be influenced by the political desires even of some friendly Government.
On these two points only have I hopes that we may get an assurance. I cannot perhaps subscribe to the view that executive officers should submit to trial by ordeal or by the House of Commons and give their reasons and explanations for every executive act they do, but I think that in these circumstances, and particularly in view of what has been said, the House might well be entitled to an assurance that they did not deny political asylum and that they did not act under pressure.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freites: The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has stated two points most fairly, and I think that the least we

should get to-night is an answer to those two points. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) on his persistence in this case.
I understand that the Home Office claims that it has a good case. If it has, the Home Office is to blame because its good case is not understood. My hon. Friend touched on the reason why the Home Office is to blame, because its recent behaviour has caused the loss of priceless good will and the respect of a large amount of liberal opinion in this country.
The whole aspect of liberty of speech and the protection of the individual against the State is a real thing for the Home Office to protect at all times. The Home Department is not a Ministry of the Interior or a Ministry of Justice or something which we know about in foreign countries. Its task is to protect people. The recent actions of the Home Office have caused the loss of public confidence. I could refer to a matter which I have raised in the House, and which other hon. Members have raised, on what we regard as the niggardly compensation for innocent men after two years' imprisonment.
What about other matters raised in this House which have disturbed public opinion, such as the appearance of attacking free speech through the suppression of the conference at Bedford College, delays of up to eight months in dealing with a prisoner's petition, increasing delays in dealing with petitions from prisoners, and cases like this today, with the timing which my hon. Friend gave? Why was the order of expulsion made two days before the House adjourned for Christmas when I, like other of my hon. Friends, asked if it could be deferred until after the House had reassembled? Why was the order made to take effect just before the House assembled? Public confidence and trust in the Home Office and the Home Secretary are the foundations for the very wide discretion which the public and the House give to the Home Secretary. The difficulty is that through its actions in recent times the Home Office has lost that public confidence.
The Joint Under-Secretary will, it is clear, have plenty of time to deal with this point. Was the Home Secretary


compelled to act in this way in the interests of this country, or was he acting in the interests of the Iraqi Government? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange deserves a full answer to the case he has made.

10.15 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): The best answer I can give to the general, rather sweeping and unjustified charges which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has just made is to reply directly to all the main points which have been made in the debate, and I think I can. I want to deal first with the criticism, which I concede is the most difficult feature of this case, which is that the reasons for the action taken against the three students have been withheld, and the circumstances, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) said, have been shrouded in mystery, and that my right hon. and gallant Friend confined himself, as I shall do, to saying that this action was taken in the public interest.
It has been suggested—the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange said it—that that leads to the worst inferences. That may well be. Decisions of this kind and their consequences, as the hon. Member for Lincoln knows, are not the smallest of the burdens which the Home Secretary of this country has to carry. The House knows quite well, what parties outside the House who have concerned themselves with the cause of the students may not know, that this formula, this reference to the public interest, was not invented to meet this particular case. The hon. Member for Lincoln knows that well.
The Aliens Order explicitly gives the Secretary of State power to deport at discretion and the entire responsibility rests with him. He takes the decision himself, as he has done on this occasion, and it has become the practice for the Secretary of State not to discuss the reasons and to ask the House of Commons to trust him. It was, I may add, the practice of the Home Secretary in the last administration and fully justified by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) on one occasion.
In some cases, I agree, no possible harm might be done by disclosing the whole story. In others it may be that

there are issues at stake which cannot be discussed because of the public interest. The best course is to adhere to the practice that reasons need not be given, and this, I stress, is not new. It has broadly been the course adhered to since the Aliens Order was first introduced in 1919.
Of course, it may be said that some hint, some indication, should be given in justice to the individuals themselves. But that simply stimulates more speculation and more disclosures and down the slippery slope which affords satisfaction to none and may well lead to injustice to the individual concerned. This course inevitably leads to suggestions that there are sinister forces behind the decision, or dictating the decision as has been suggested in this case.
That brings me to the second point to which all hon. Members referred, a most serious allegation, widely circulated and widely credited, that the decision was taken as a result of pressure by the Iraqi Government. I can deny that categorically. It is completely untrue. The decision was my right hon. and gallant Friend's and his alone and was influenced by no communication whatsoever from the Iraqi Government. Nor was the decision taken as the result of action by that Government such as withholding their passports or scholarships. I have seen a reference—it was not made in the debate, but it is relevant to the debate—to a speech by the Minister of Education in Iraq in which he said that twenty-five students had had their scholarships withdrawn and
he looked to the co-operation of the British authorities in cancelling their residence permits in Britain.
Much has been made of that by some hon. Members previous to this debate.
What are the facts? Of these twenty-five students, I am informed that fourteen were in this country and, so far as I know thirteen are still here. So far as we know, only one of the three students who have gone had his scholarship withdrawn. The other two still have them. But I should have thought that was conclusive evidence—I hope that the House will accept it as such—that our action was wholly unrelated to the actions or wishes of the Iraqi Government. Perhaps in this case it is permissible to quote the words used by the right hon. Member for Grimsby


on a rather similar occasion, when he said,
I rather resent the ready assumption that my right hon. Friend, and for that matter myself, are … dancing like marionettes as some hidden hand jerks the strings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 1796.]

Mr. de Freitas: We had not lost the confidence of the people.

Mr. Deedes: I wish to deal next with the criticism made by the hon. Member for Lincoln that these students were required to leave when the House was not sitting, or were deported without the House having had an opportunity to discuss this matter while they were still in this country.
That criticism infers one of two things; either that when the House is not sitting my right hon. and gallant Friend should put into suspense the powers conferred on him by Parliament, which he is empowered to act on—the Aliens Order—and to exercise at any time, or secondly, that my right hon. and gallant Friend is being accused of deferring action which he considered in the public interest because of a reluctance to defend that step in the House. I hope that the House will agree that no Secretary of State could accept such limitations of power and has never been expected to. In effect, it would be consigning to the Legislature a power conferred by the Executive and which has been exercised by the Executive. No such limit is imposed upon any other aspect of executive powers.
My right hon. and gallant Friend makes about 150 deportation orders a year and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they are fairly evenly distributed throughout the country. It would be quite unreasonable if the Administration in such cases—and there are those in which immediate action is essential to secure the repatriation of an undesirable—had to be related to the sitting of Parliament. As to the second point, no hon. Member who knows my right hon. Friend will believe that he fears to face this House on this or any other matter. He has never shown any reluctance to justify the administration of powers he holds under the Aliens Order.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not the fact that my hon. Friend and I both asked that

this matter should be deferred until the House reassembled? And was not that merely a matter of days?

Mr. Deedes: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this part of my remarks.
The students were required to leave on 20th January. The House met on 24th January. These events are quite unrelated. In view of the time that they have been in the United Kingdom, it was reasonable that the students should be given a month. They were written to on 21st December and asked to leave on 20th January. As matters have turned out, neither hon. Members—

Mr. W. Griffiths: One of the three students, Mr. Nuri, was, of course, dealt with in the summer of last year. If it was so urgent to get rid of him in the Christmas Recess, I wish to know what new situation had arisen, since he had been allowed to stay when representations were made on his behalf, and on behalf of the others, in July.

Mr. Deedes: That underlines what I said earlier, namely, that these decisions are not quickly or lightly arrived at. When the decision had been reached the notice was sent—and one month's notice was given. As it turned out, neither the students nor hon. Members were deprived of taking action. The students circulated a memorandum to many hon. Members; stories have appeared in the Press—one has been referred to tonight—and a great many letters have been received by my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself. On 10th January I saw the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange and on 17th January my right hon. and gallant Friend saw a deputation of four Members, including the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange—and all this happened while the students were still in the country.
Of course, it is open to the House, as it always is, to criticise my right hon. and gallant Friend's exercise of his powers, but if he withheld those powers under threat that the matter would be raised in the House he would be regarded as failing in his duty.
One other important question was asked by hon. Members, in connection with the possible danger to life or liberty to these three students upon their return


to Iraq. We have no reason whatever to suppose that there is any such danger, and the question of political asylum raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) therefore does not arise. The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange will correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the three students themselves did not suggest it. I ought to make that clear, in fairness to them.
The students were not required to return to Iraq, and I believe that none has yet done so. My information is that Nuri booked a passage, by air for Egypt via Dusseldorf. My latest information is that he disembarked there. Hussain and Mustafa travelled via Harwich to the Hook of Holland. I understand that Hussain decided to remain temporarily at Amsterdam.
The hon. Member asked whether this was the end of a campaign against Iraqi students. There is no such campaign, and there never has been. I want to deal with the question of the possible unsettling effect upon not only Iraqi but other students about their future, as a result of this decision. The letter which the students sent to hon. Members, dated 20th January, refers to the fact that
naturally recent events have increased anxieties among our members as to their future.
As the House knows, our policy is to admit foreign students very freely to this country. That is not altruism. We believe that such a policy has reciprocal advantages. Genuine full-time students have always been and will always be welcome. In the last academic year about 25,000 foreign students came here. That figure has now risen to about 30,000. I have no information officially, but I believe that students from Iraq number about 550, of which 320 are members of the Iraqi Students' Society.
Only two general requirements are asked of them. The first is that there shall be a reasonable application to their studies, and the second that they shall be sponsored or adequately maintained. The House knows that all aliens are subject

to the overriding consideration that permission to stay may not be extended, or that existing permits may be cut short, on grounds of public interest. I dealt with that aspect earlier in my remarks.
I hope that recent events will not mislead this great body of students, especially the Iraqis, to suppose that they are any less welcome, or that there has been any fundamental shift in our belief that their presence here will be for the long term benefit for our respective countries.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I think that I have time to say that the reply of the Joint Under-Secretary is thoroughly unsatisfactory, and I hope that the House will find another opportunity for resuming this debate. I have a special interest in these Iraqi students, because one of them attended a technical college in my constituency. I have made exhaustive inquiries in his case. He is a man whose father holds a high place in Iraq. He has been unfairly prejudiced and, as far as I have been able to discover, there is nothing which can be held against him.
I have found ground for suspicions—I do not put it higher—that representations were made by the Iraqi Government. The Joint Under-Secretary has been careful not to deny that. What he said was something entirely different—that his right hon. and gallant Friend did not come to his decision because of those representations. But he was asked whether any representations had been made. If they had been, in view of the decision which was taken, I think that we are entitled to know the form of those representations, and to what effect they——

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.